PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972
] SENATE RESOLUTION 60
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
WATERGATE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
Phase II: Campaign Practices
WASHINGTON, D.C., OCTOBER 4, 9, 10, 11, AND 31, 1973
Book 11
Printed for the use of the
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities
ON DEPOSIT FE6?o.
074
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972
SENATE RESOLUTION 60
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
I
WATERGATE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
Phase II: Campaign Practices
WASHINGTON, D.C., OCTOBER 4, 9, 10, 11, AND 31, 1973
Book 11
Printed for the use of the
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21-296 O WASHINGTON : 1973
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $3
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL
CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
(Established by S. Res. 60, 93d Congress, 1st Session)
SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina, Chairman
HOWARD H. BAKER, JE., Tennessee, Vice Chairman
HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Georgia EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii LOWELL P. WEICKER, Jr., Connecticut
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico
Samuel Dash, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Fred D. Thompson, Minority Counsel
RuFus L. Bdmisten, Deputy Chief Counsel
Arthur S. Miller, Chief Consultant
David M. Dorsbn, Assistant Chief Counsel
Terry F. Lenzner, Assistant Chief Counsel
James Hamilton, Assistant Chief Counsel
Car.mine S. Bellino, Chief Investigator
Wayne H. Bishop, Chief Field Investigator
Eugene Boyce, Hearings Record Counsel
Marc Lackritz, Assistant Counsel
William T. Mayton, Assistant Counsel
Ronald D. Rotunda, Assistant Counsel
Barry Schochet, Assistant Counsel
W. Dennis Summers, Assistant Counsel
James C. Moore, Assistant Counsel
Donald G. Sanders, Deputy Minority Counsel
Howard S. Liebengood, Assistant Minority Counsel
Michael J. Madigan, Assistant Minority Counsel
Richard L. Schultz, Assistant Minority Counsel
Robert Silverstein, Assistant Minority Counsel
Carolyn M. Andrade, Administrative Assistant
Carolyn E. Cohen, Office Manager
Joan C. Cole, Secretary to the Minority
(III
CONTENTS
HEARING DAYS
Page
Thursday, October 4, 1973 4375
Tuesday. October 9, 1973 4433
Wednesday, October 10, 1973 4477
Thursday, October 11. 1973 4565
Wednesday, October 31, 1973 4635
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Thursday, Octobee 4, 1973
Kelly, Martin D., hired by Donald Segretti to cause disruption among
Democratic Presidential primary candidates, accompanied by Phillip K.
Beck, counsel 4376
Benz, Robert M., hired by Donald Segretti to recruit and place infiltrators
into the Democratic candidates' campaigns; accompanied by Delbert L.
McLaughlin, counsel 4403
Tuesday, October 9, 1973
Buckley. John R., former Director of Inspection Division, Office of Equal
Opportunity. Accepted assignments from Ken Rietz, director of the youth
division. Committee To Re-Elect the President ; accompanied by Ken-
neth D. Wood, counsel 4435
Wednesday, October 10, 1973
McMinoway, Michael W., hired by representatives of the Committee To
Re-Elect the President to infiltrate various Democratic campaign orga-
nizations; accompanied by Frank E. Haddad. Jr.. counsel 4478
Taugher, Frederick J., former coordinator of the southern California
campaign for Senator George McGovern 4536
Hickman, Gary, lieutenant of the Los Angeles, Calif., Police Department 4556
Thursday, October 11, 1973
Stearns, Richard G., former western region campaign director for Senator
George McGovern ; accompanied by Edward F. Mannino and John M.
Elliott, counsel 4565
Mankiewicz. Frank, former political director for the campaign of Sena-
tor George McGovern 4601
Wednesday, October 31, 1973
Lackritz, Marc, staff member of the Select Committee on Presidential
Campaign Activities 4635
Bernhard. Berl. former campaign manager of Senator Muskie for the Dem-
ocratic nomination of 1972, accompanied by two partners of his law
firm, Ronald Natalie and Harry McPherson. and also by John Merrigan,
an associate in the same law firm 4644
(m)
IV
INTERROGATION OF WITNESSES BY MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE AND COUNSELS
Page
Ervin, Hon. Sam J., Jr Kelly: 4393-1398,
4401, 4402. Beuz : 4419-4421, 4428, 4432. Buckley : 4471-1474.
McMinoway: 4505-4513. Tauglier : 4551, 4552. Hickman: 4563.
Bernhard : 4692-4696.
Baker, Hon. Howard H., Jr Buckley : 4466-1471.
McMinoway : 4513-4519. Stearns : 4565, 4586-458S. Bernhard :
4649, 4650, 4685-4692.
Talmadge, Hon. Herman E Benz : 4425,
4426. Buckley: 4450-4454. McMinoway: 4536. Bernhard: 4685.
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K Kelly: 4389-4391.
Benz: 4427, 4428. Buckley: 4457-4459. McMinoway: 4519-4522.
Taugher : 4552, 4553.
Montova, Hon. Joseph M Kelly: 4398-4400.
Benz: 4427. 4428. Buckley: 4457-4459. McMinoway: 4519-4522.
Stearns: 4589, 4590. Mankiewicz : 4627-1634. Bernhard: 4684,
4685.
Gurnev, Hon. Edward J Kelly: 4391^393,
4400, 4401. Buckley : 4454-4456. McMinoway : 4522-4529. Stearns :
4592, 4593.
Weicker, Hon. Lowell P., Jr Benz: 4421-4425,
4431, 4432. Buckley: 4459-4463, 4474-4476. McMinoway: 4533-
4536. Taugher: 4555. Mankiewicz: 4631, 4632.
Dash, Samuel, Chief Counsel and Staff Director McMinoway : 4477-4500.
Mankiewicz: 4601-4620, 4634.
Thompson, Fred D., Minority Counsel Buckley : 4448-4450.
McMinoway: 4501-4505. Taugher: 4542-4551, 4553-1555. Hick-
man: 4561-4563. Stearns: 4576-4586, 4597^600. Mankiewicz:
4620-4627. Lackritz : 4642, 4643.
Edmisten. Rufus L., Deputy Chief Counsel Buckley : 4436-4448.
Lenzner, Terry F., Assistant Chief Counsel Kelly : 4376-1385,
4402. Benz: 4403-4415, 4428, 4429. Steams: 4568-^576, 4595-
4597. Lackritz: 4635-4644. Bernhard: 4644, 4645, 4668-4679. ^
Hamilton, James, Assistant Chief Counsel Taugher: 4536-4542.
Hickman : 4556-4561.
Liebengood, Howard S., Assistant Minority Counsel Kelly : 4385-1389.
Benz : 4415-4419.
Madigan, Michael J., Assistant Minority Counsel Bernhard : 4679-4684.
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
No. 227 — (4439) Article from Washington Star by Morris Siegel, re:
Senator Humphrey 4697
No. 228 — (4442) Itemized bill for photography supplies purchased from
Penn Camera Exchange, Inc., by John Buckley, dated 10/22/71- 4698
Nos. 229A-D — (4551) Four photographs taken by White House photog-
rapher at a demonstration 4699
No. 230 — (4556) Resume of Michael McMinoway's activities 4703
No. 231— (4556) Diary of activities, March 21-31 4705
No. 232 — (4556) Resume of the Muskie organization in the Wisconsin
primary 4707
No. 233— (4556) Diary of activities, April 10-12 4709
No. 234— (4556) Political analysis of Philadelphia 4712
No. 235— (4556) Political analysis of California 4714
No. 236 — (4556) Inliltration of McGovern headquarters, Washington, D.C- 4715
No. 237— (4556) Infiltration of McGovern staff in Miami 4717
No 238 — (4556) Documentation of financial transactions between Mr.
Rainer and Mr. McMinoway from March 17 to July 8. 1972 4718
No. 239 — (4561) Intradepartmental correspondence to deputy chief Louis
L. Sporrer from Commander G. N. Beck. Subject : After-action
report — ^President Nixon's visit — September 27, 1972 4719
No. 240 — (4561) Death and burglary report on David W. Jenkins 4727
No. 241 — (4588) Notarized letter to Senator Montoya from Senator Mc-
Govern re: McGovern not recognizing McMinoway 4743
Page
No. 242— (4600) Summary of the Muskie voting record 4744
No. 243 — (4635) Chart illustrating a variety of individuals engaged in
political surveillance, information gathering or sabotage in the
1072 Presidential campaign 4637
No. 244-1* — Harris Poll — Nixon vs. Muskie, January, 1971 : Chronological
poll results (Nixon-Muskie- Wallace and Nixon-Muskie)
during period 1971 and 1972 through the preconvention
period 4764
Xo. 244-2 — Various staff memorandums relating to financial controls 4766
No. 244-3 — Affidavit of Muskie campaign bookkeeper and attached com-
parison of receipts, expenditures, payables, and receivables,
month-by-month, January 1971 through April 6. 1972 4786
j^o. 244-4 — Analysis of Muskie campaign employee/consultant headcount,
sa'aries/fees paid by pay period and summary of staff cuts
and salary reductions. 1971 and 1972 4790
No. 244—5 — Fuudraising report.s — direct mail and fundraising events 4792
No. 244-6 — Memorandums dealing with fundraising policies and practices 4800
No. 244-7 — Opinion of counsel on fundraising guidelines 4805
No. 244-8 — Opinion letter regarding contributions of appreciated proi>
erties and gift tax committees 4806
No. 244-9 — Copies of letters returning corporate contributions 4809
No. 244-10— "Canuck" letter materials 4810
No. 244-11 — Previously entered as exhibit 201 in Book 10, p. 4270.
No. 244-12 — Previously entered as exhibit 202 in Book 10, p. 4271.
No. 244-13 — Evans-Novak column reprinting excerpts from purloined staff
memorandum 4814
No. 244-14 — New York Times article on Diane Moore infiltration 4815
No. 244-15 — Previously entered as exhibit 52 in Book 4. p. 1700.
No. 244-16 — Confidential memorandum describing Senator Muskie's ad-
vance schedule and relating political strategy for the fall
and winter of 1971 4817
No. 244-17 — Mass mailing fraudulently attributed to Senator Muskie (Har-
ris poll critical of Senator Kennedy) 4847
No. 244-18 — Partial list of recipients of fraudulent mailing 4850
No. 244-19 — Disclaimer letter mailetl out by Senator Mu.skie in response
to fraudulent mailing 4852
No. 244-20 — Exchange of correspondence between Senator Muskie and
postal officials concerning the fraudulent mailing 4853
No. 244—21 — Previously entered as exhibit 204 in Book 10, p. 4275.
No. 244-22— Previously entered as exhibit 206 in Book 10. p. 4280.
No. 244-23--Previously entered as exhibit 207 in Book 10, p. 4281.
No. 244—24 — Chapin memorandum regarding signs to be used at rallies 4858
No. 244—25 — Previously entere<l as exhibit 214 in Book 10, p. 4292.
No. 244-26 — Copy of "Muskie Aeeountatoility Project" forwarded to cam-
paign headquarters by the League of Women Voters' Na-
tional Office 4859
No. 244-27 — Previou.sly entered as exhibit 209 in Book 10, p. 4284.
No. 244-28 — News article concerning wiretaps on Morton Halperin and
Anthony Lake after their Government tenure and during
their involvement in the campaign 4884
No. 244-29 — ^Contemporaneous memorandums dealing with highly unusual
occurrences on phones of Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution Office 4886
No. 244-30 — ^lemorandum of Leon Billings dealing with telephone
incident 4888
No. 244-31 — Previously entered as exhibit 158 in Book 10, p. 4055.
No. 245 — (4695) Committee To Re-Elect the President memorandum for
the Attorney General from Jeb Magruder re : Senator Mus-
kie's campaign organization 4889
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Letter to the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities with
attached affidavit of Thomas P. Southwick 4892
♦Exhibits 244-1 through 244-31 officially made part of the record on page 4695.
Note. — Figures in parentheses indicate page that exhibit was officially made part of
the record.
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972
PHASE II: CAMPAIGN PRACTICES
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1973
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
Washington^ D.C.
The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :20 a.m., in room
318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chair-
man), presiding.
Present : Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inoiiye, Montoya, Baker, Gur-
ney, and Weicker.
Also present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director; Fred
D. Thompson, minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief
counsel ; David M. Dorsen and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief coun-
sels; Marc Lackritz, James C. Moore, W. Dennis Summers, and Barry
Schochet, assistant majority counsels; Eugene Boyce, hearings record
counsel; Donald G. Sanders, deputy minority counsel; Howard S.
Liebengood, Michael J. Madigan, H. William Shure, and Robert
Silverstein, assistant minority counsels ; Pauline O. Dement, research
assistant; Eiler Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye; Bruce Jaques,
Jr., office of Senator Montoya ; A. Searle Field, assistant to "Senator
Weicker ; John Walz, publications clerk.
Senator Ervix. The committee will come to order.
I am sorry I had to go to the Commerce Committee. It was impera-
tive, and I was in hopes that the senior member, the vice chairman,
would open the meeting and he should if I am not here. Counsel wnll
call the first witness.
Mr. Edmisten. Mr. Chairman, the first witness is Martin Douglas
Kelly, and he will be interrogated by Mr. Terry Lenzner, the assistant
chief counsel. Mr. Kelly does have immunity, and you might want to
speak to that.
Senator Ervin. Suppose you stand up Mr. Kelly, raise your right
hand. Do you swear the evidence you shall give to the Senate Select
Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities shall be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Let the record show that Mr. Kelly is testifying in-
voluntarily under an order of immunity entered by Chief Judge John
J. Sirica of the U.S. District Court for "the District of Columbia under
sections 6002 and 6005 of title 18 of the United States Code, and that
such order was entered by Judge Sirica at the unanimous request of
the Senate Select Committee. Counsel may proceed.
(4375)
4376
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Kelly, I see you have counsel with you. Would
coimsel identify himself, please?
Mr. Beck. Yes, sir, Mr. Lenzner, Phillip K. Beck. I am a practicing
attorney in Lakeland, Fla.
Mr. Lenzner. Thank you, Mr. Beck.
Mr. Kelly, you have a short statement. Would you go ahead and
read that please ?
TESTIMONY OF MARTIN DOUGLAS KELLY, ACCOMPANIED BY
PHILLIP K. BECK, COUNSEL
Mr. Kelly. Yes. My name is IVIartin D. Kelly. I am 24 years old ;
live in Miami, Fla., and was born in Fukuoka, Japan. I've previously
been heavily involved in Florida College Eepublican and Young Re-
publican activities statewide. There have been several political cam-
paigns that I have participated in to varied extents and capacities
since 1968.
Two years ago I was approached by a man identifying himself as
Donald Simmons, asking me to join liim in political ventures relat-
ing to "negative campaigning," or, as it's currently more popularly
termed, "dirty tricks." My participation in these activities was on my
own volition, and I was initially paid a modest salary for the purpose
of causing confusion, disruption, and malcontent amongst the Demo-
cratic Presidential primary candidates.
After participating in some of the aforementioned activities either
by myself or with Mr. Segretti — alias Donald Simmons — I was to be
paid $700 monthly for activities to take place just before, during, and
after the Democratic National Convention in Miami Beach. No prov(?-
cations, illegalities, or dirty pranks were carried out that summer
because of the Watergate break-in and the heat of the investigations
that followed. My varied political ventures relating to these activi-
ties took place, therefore, sometime between December 1971 to about
April or May 1972, or a period of approximately 6 months.
I have provided this committee with a verbal report on all that I
can recall that was done for Mr. Segretti, with Mr. Segretti, or on my
own volition. I very deeply regret the political and pereonal damage
incurred by the Senators, their families and staff membere while run-
ning for higher office, as a result of my activities.
It's my hope that young people will continue to enter politics in
high school and college. "\Yliat political future I may have had has
been virtually wiped out by what I did and was involved in. Those
who live by the sword die by the sword, and I feel that these hearings
can serve no better function than to exemplify the necessity of keeping
our political system free of the things that can make politics corrupt
and eventually ineffective.
Thank you.
Mr. Lenzner. Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly, how long have you lived in Miami ?
Mr. Kelly. I have lived in Miami about 10 of the last 11 years,
approximately.
Mr. Lenzner. How are you presently employed, sir?
Mr. Kelly. Right now I am employed with my father. We are
starting a business in Florida.
4377
Mr. Lenzner. Now, did that call you referred to from Mr. Sim-
mons come in the fall of 1971 ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir, it did.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you tell the committee what the substance of the
phone call was?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Segretti called identifying himself as Donald Simmons, saying
he Avas referred — he had been referred to me by a Mr. Smith whom I
did not know or didn't know what he was talking about. He said he
wanted to meet with me, have lunch, and discuss some possibility of
my helping him in something political, I wasn't sure what. He asked
me who my choice for President was and I told him I was for Nixon.
Mr. Lenzner. Shortly after that did you meet with him and can
you relate that conversation ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. It didn't take much time. I suppose the lunch
was 45 minutes, an hour, something of that sort. We discussed my
background, my political background, and he asked me what I thought
about negative campaigning, was the way he put it. I expressed inter-
est in it unfortunately, and when I asked him about his background he
was pretty evasive, he only mentioned that he was a gradute of Yale,
he was 29, that he was from a very wealthy family that was interested
in getting involved in the election.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he explain what "negative campaigning" was or
did you have some idea of that ?
]\ir. Kelly. Well, I had a pretty good idea of what it was, I didn't
of course understand the scope of what he meant but I certainly knew
what positive campaigning was and I had seen some negative cam-
paigning in previous campaigns to a much lesser degree but I had a
pretty good idea of what he meant.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you agree to work for "Mr. Simmons," as you
thought his name to be, at that time ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. In a way it wasn't like you were hired that
particular time. He said he would get back in touch with me in a
week or 10 days. He gave me some money, I don't remember the
exact amount, $40, $50, $60, something of that sort and he recontacted
me by phone about a week or 10 days later.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you arrive at an agreement for compensation for
your work ?
Mr. Kelly. Pardon ?
Mr. Lenzner. Did you arrive at an agreement for compensation for
your work ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
One hundred and fifty dollars, I was to be paid initialh^ for the first
few months, and then he said we will work something out later as to
more.
Mr. Lenzner. And did he specify a figure for your work to be done
later?
Mr. Kelly. Well, not at that time; no. I^ater the figure was set
at $700. It was to start about June, April — about May or June — was to
run before the convention, during the convention, and also for some
postconvention activity. J^j the convention I mean the Democrat con-
vention in Miami Beach which I think was held in July.
4378
Mr. Lenzner. Now, prior to Mr. Simmons calling and being with
you, did you know an individual by the name of Harry Devant ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
I had met Mr. Devant in young Republican politics. He was local, he
was also in Miami. I knew in 1968 he had been an advance man for
President Nixon's campaign, and I knew him socially mostly, or
sometime in 1971, 1 can't place the exact time or date, but it was 1971,
I think that he began getting involved in young Republican politics
which I was also involved in.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, a short time ago, you had a conversation with
Mr. Devant concerning Mr. Segretti, is that correct ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. It was never clear to me even from the con-
versation with Mr. Devant that he was the one who had referred Mr.
Segretti to me or had given him my name. I was suspicious of that
fact. He mentioned that Segretti had contacted him and asked him, to
paraphrase, "For somebody who had guts," and apparently he gave
him my name.
Mr. Lenzner. How long did you work for Mr. Segretti ?
Mr. Kelly. Well, I was first contacted by him, in, I believe, October,
I think it was October but my activities really didn't start until about
December, and they ran mostly until the primary which I believe was
March 14 in Florida. I did participate with him in some activities
after that as late as April or May. But I suppose the entire time I
was involved with Mr. Segretti in political sabotage, if you will, would
be about 6 months.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, during that period of time you had telephonic
and inperson contact with him, did you discuss with Mr. Segretti his
strategy for the Democratic primary in Florida ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
We discussed what we thought were the strategies, what we wanted
to do. The idea was that everybody knew Wallace was going to take
the State but given that fact, second was as good as first really for the
rest of the candidates. It would not have been a defeat if Senator
Muskie had come in second in Florida because everybody expected
Wallace to take the State. What we wanted was to have Senator Mus-
kie to come in fourth, fifth, or worse because this would derail his
bandwagon, so to speak, while coming in second would not. And the
idea was to not only just confuse the campaigns of the candidates but
to cause divisiveness, to make it difficult for them to unite after the
convention, and some of the things we have done, which I will go
into later, you will be able to see that clearly.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, was there also discussion about Senator Mus-
kie and his personality with Mr, Segretti ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
He mentioned to me that Senator Muskie had a short fuse, and
that if enough pressure, week by week, was put on him and enough
things went wrong he would be more apt to blow that fuse.
Mr, Lenzner. By the ay, could you explain to the committee how
you communicated telepnonically "with Mr. Segretti initially ?
Mr. Kelly. Well, initially, he called me, he called me station-to-
station, I was living at the time with my parents, we moved to Fort
Lauderdale during that time initially when he was contacting me.
He also called by phone from California, station-to-station. It was
never a person-to-person call.
4379
Mr. Lej^zner. Did you use your real name in talking with Mr.
Segretti ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. On the phone ?
Did there come a time later when you started calling Mr. Segretti
and you did not use your name ?
Mr. Kelly. Exactly.
After several months he gave me a number of an answering service,
somewhere in the Midwest, Cook & Associates or something to that
effect. I would call, if I needed to get in touch with him and leave
the name "Mr. Douglas" and he would call me back. Usually we had
a time, a set time. He would call me every 2 weeks on a Monday at
12 o''clock or something of this sort but if something came up that
we had to communicate before that, or I did — I was to call this number
and he would get back in touch with me.
Mr. Lenzner. Did there come a time when you and Mr. Segretti
began to place false advertisements ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Those were in newspaper-s and on the radio, is that
correct ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe the substance of those advertise-
ments ? What they were aimed at ?
Mr. Kelly. Well, they were advertisements placed in the university
newspaper, University of Miami campus newspaper, I think one was
read yesterday, a want ad, there was also another one in there. There
was a Cuban newspaper, local one, in Miami that an ad was placed,
alluding to Senator Muskie saying that we should start recognizing
Cuba, start trying to cooperate and work with them, and I think it
ended by him saying, "I was bom in Maine and I am a good Ameri-
can" which, of course, was meant to insult Cubans that read it. A
similar ad was put on the radio of the same type of copy, it was done
on the Cuban radio station.
Mr. Lenzner. I take it those advertisements focused primarily on
Senator Muskie, is that correct ?
Mr. Kelly. Totally, yes, sir.
They were not signed by an individual but they had a tag on it
referring to the Senator Muskie reelection — Senator Muskie for Presi-
dent Committee.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, did you also distribute with Mr. Segretti litera-
ture on a number of occasions ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe briefly the nature of the literature
you were distributing?
Mr, Kelly. Some of the literature were posters that we put up that
were shown yesterday, the busing posters, he and I put so many of
those up in Miami. There was literature distributed for a bogus lunch
that was held in Senator Muskie's behalf at his campaign headquarters.
These were passed out, telling them to bring the in^^tation with them,
thev would get a free lunch and liquor and get to meet Senator Muskie
and his wife, and we also had literature passed out on campus, some
passed out on Miami Beach, some at picnics, a couple at his rally.
Mr. Lenzner. On that invitation to a free lunch, did you take any
further action after passing out those pamphlets ?
4380
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir, which is really the strateg^y of what we were
doino;, which is kind of illustrative. The morning the hmch was to
take place, of course, Muskie headquarters people did not know about
it. I think we had passed these out 1 or 2 days before. I called that
morning representing myself as a distraught Lindsay supporter and
mentioned that I wanted to be anonymous but something had taken
place I was very upset about, that had been done by someone from
Lindsay's camp and that they should be expecting some lunch crashers
very shortly. The evening before — then I gave him the address of the
local Lindsay headquarters where you go down and check it out.
Mr. Lenzner. That call was to Senator Muskie's headquarters, is
that right?
Mr. Kelly. Yes. The evening before I had taken some of the invita-
tions and had put them in front of a door of Lindsay headquarters, that
I gave them the address of, put a rock on it, knowing in the morning
they would pick them up and bring them inside and when the Muskie
aides did come to the headquarters they would probably find the in-
vitations inside the headquarters.
Mr. Lenzner. And that, I think, demonstrates in your description
the attempt to divide and leave a residue of some bitterness between
the camps, is that correct ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
'WTiich sort of focuses on a misconception that this committee seems
to have on one of the purposes of what was done. I know there were
some questions yesterday by Senator Ervin and by Senator Gurney
about this. These things being done were not done to influence votes,
necessarily, at all. You send out 50, as bad as they were, I did not have
anything to do with that letter, the sexual letter, as bad as they were,
I think they only went to 50 people, you are not going to affect the
primary by sending 50 letters out. The letters were bad enough, they
were expected to be brought to the notice of the candidates of who
sent them and for him to be upset about it and for him to blame
possibly another candidate running in the Democratic primary.
The idea was to get the candidates backbiting each other and possibly
starting doing it to each other outside of our acti^nties. They were
not necessarily to influence votes. If we could get, sa5^ Senator
Jackson very, very upset at Senator McGovern for something that was
done after the convention he might raise half the money he would
have, speak at half the places he would have in the State, and that
would have meant a percentage point or even a half percentage point,
it could have meant the difference in the State during the general
election.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you also, with Mr. Segretti, issue false press
releases?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. And again, for the same strategy. T take it ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you just describe briefly the nature of the releases ;
what they contained, if you remember them ?
Mr. Kelly. I do not remember distinctly. I think one referred to
Senator Humphrey. These were written on Muskie stationery. They
referred to Senator Muskie's stand or at least claimed vague and
ambiguous stand, of aid to Israel which, of course, did not go over very
4381
well in Miami Beach. I cannot recaU exactly what the others — I think
there were three releases, maybe four that I sent.
Mr. Lenzner. And that press release contrasted Senator Humphrey's
position on that issue with Senator Muskie's to make it appear that
it was a pamphlet or a flier handed out by Senator Muskie?
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Was there also a press release on Senator Muskie that
he favored busing while he sent his children to private schools ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes — well, I am not sure that was a release, because I
am not sure it was on Senator Muskie's stationery.
Mr. Lenzner. That would have been a flier ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
. Mr. Lenzner. By the way, did you ever get any kind of impression
or any understanding of how successful this strategy was during the
primary ?
Mr. Kelly. No, not specifically. I did not have a reporter or spy
in any headquarters. I could only perceive that a lot was going on,
that they were having problems. I had worked in campaigns, been in
campaign headquarters myself and if a lot of food, all of a sudden
started arriving, and a lot of phone calls and a lot of people started
walking in for lunches had been happening, I know I would have been
upset aoout it, and fake press releases, et cetera. So I only surmised
that they were having problems. I had no personal knowledge of that.
Mr. Lenzner. Did there come a time when Mr. Segretti dictated a
letter to you over the phone ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. It was a letter that purportedly said that a
Congressman from the west coast of Florida had donated his aides
and some typewriters to Senator Muskie's campaign, which more or
less mentions that or alludes to the fact that he is using paid Govern-
ment workers, his staff members, to work for a Presidential candi-
date. These were sent to — I think one was sent to Jack Anderson, I
think one was sent to the Boston Globe, one was sent to Kowan and
Martin — what are their names — Evans and Novak.
I believe one was sent to Knight newspapers. I cannot recall for
sure.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you send one to Senator Jackson's headquarters
also?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir, just in case the newsmen were not doing their
job on that. We figured that that would work, that they would cer-
tainly get back in touch with Senator Muskie and check it out before
they printed it. Just in case they did not, we sent one to Jackson's
headquarters, because we knew they would not be too happy about it.
Mr. Lenzner, Mr. Beck, do you have the documents ?
If you will look at tab 9 [exhibit No. 205*], I think it is. Does that
appear to be the letter 'that you just referred to, Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And that is on Senator Muskie's stationery, is it not?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, Mr. Kelly, did you also on occasion discuss with
Mr. Segretti the use of a stinkbomb or some kind of chemical to be
used at political events?
♦See Book 10, p. 4279.
4382
Mr. Keli.y. Yes, sir. I have a friend that is a chemist and he came
up with a concoction. The name is butyl percaptain.
Mr. Lenzner. Could you give the spelling?
Mr. Kelly. I think it is b-u-t-y-1 p-e-r-c-a-p-t-a-i-n.
He guaranteed me that it would make rotten eggs smell like a rose,
which is horrible, and was. It was very, very bad stuff. It was not
physically harmful, but was very, very noxious. It was terrible to have
to sit there and smell it. It would cause great discomfort for anyone
being near it.
This was used — Senator Muskie had a picnic scheduled in Miami
and it was so bad, even inside of a bottle, you could smell it. We had to
put wax around it and put it in a coke. The way it was used, the cap
was opened, the coke was dropped, and everybody thought the food
was bad. So it kind of made the picnic a bad affair.
He took some of it and used it up in Tampa, from what I understand.
Mr. Lenzner. And it was used at a picnic in the Miami area?
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you also conduct other activities on primary day
in Florida, on March 14 of 1972 ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe those to the committee ?
Mr. Kelly. On primary day, we had the campaign headquarters
of Senator Muskie — we called, some floral arrangements were brought
in, some chicken, some pizzas, I think $300 or $400 of liquor. The tele-
phones, we tried to tie up the telephones by — we knew the sequence,
or at least the number on his campaign material was 1234, say, the
last four digits. We just took the last digit and kept adding one num-
ber to it and calling it until we had one of his phone outlets. We went
to a phone booth — by "we," I mean I. I went to a phone booth, would
call the number. When they answered, I would leave it off the hook,
walk out of the booth and put an out-of-order sign on it. I am not
sure that worked. As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure it did not
work, because the phones cut off when this happens. At least, I dis-
covered that a week or so later when I tried it on myself, so I do not
think it was effective. But we did do that.
Mr. Lenzner. Was there one occasion when you went to a press
conference held by Senator Muskie at a hotel in the Miami area?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe what activities you conducted
there?
Mr. Kelly. Well, he had a press conference at the Four Ambassa-
dors Hotel. I went down and asked some Cubans to hold up some
signs saying, "Muskie, go home," "We Want a Free Cuba." They
were picketing in front of the press conference, which got some of
the press attention.
I also walked into the press conference with a long overcoat and
dropped two white mice with blue ribbons on their tails saying.
"Muskie is a Eat Fink."
I also let a small finch out whidh was flying around the room and
causing some commotion and sort of made Senator Muskie's press
conference comical at the time.
Mr. Lenzner. I did not hear, Mr. Kelly. Did you describe what
instructions the pickets had ?
4383
Mr. Kelly. The pickets, I only remember clearly something to the
effect of "Miiskie, go home," "We want a Free Cuba." In other words,
showing that the Cubans were unhappy with Senator Muskie, I gave
them Humphrey buttons to wear. They were all wearing Humpnrey
buttons, which I tried to stage and one of Senator Muskie's aides came
up and asked me about it. I told him confidentially that we were really
working for Senator Jackson.
Mr. Lexzner. By the way, were you receiving Senator Muskie's
schedules from Mr. Segretti of hie activities in Florida on occasion?
Mr. Kelly. I was receiving it orally. I never had a written report
on it. He would call me and give me sometimes as much as a week's
notice on activities. We had a ticket, a train stop through the State,
he referred to it as a whistle-stop tour. I think I had a week's notice
on that, although I did not do anything on that particular issue.
Other times, I would have maybe 1 day's notice of a schedule. For
instance, he may be talking to the staff of a newspaper the next day.
If this was the case, I would call up in the morning and either cancel
the appointment or move it up an hour or back an hour, which would
cause disconcertment amongst the press and the candidate.
Mr. Lexzner. Now, on one occasion, were you asked by Mr. Segretti
to come to Washington, D.C. ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. And was tliat to attempt to disrupt Senator Muskie's
campaigrn dinner here ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. He called me on very short notice, Thursday
or Friday. I flew up on a Saturday morning. The dinner was to be
held Monday night at the Washington-Hilton. We tried to organize
a rally of demonstrators. We printed up some signs, leaflets, saying to
come demonstrate against the fat cats; a $1,000 reception and a $500-a-
plate dinner, something of that sort. We made up some signs for the
demonstrator who never showed. We did that.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you call any groups in the Washington area to
come to that demonstration ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes; we used the underground newspaper, whatever it
is called.
Mr. Lenzner. I think it has been referred to here before. I think
it is tlie Quicksilver Times.
Mr. Kelly. All right, the Quicksilver Times.
Tliere is a section in the newspaper that shows all the different
groups — the Black Panthers, the Gay Liberation Front, you know,
all the weird different groups they have.
We called them — different organizations. I do not want to say all
the weird groups. They had all the organizations listed.
We called them, contacted them, told them about the rally, when
it was, when to be there. I think we called some people from the Hare
Krishna movement. They said they would certainly have their heads
shaved and have their drums out there ready to go. But they did not
show up either.
We contacted perhaps 10 or 12 African diplomats and told them
that we were speaking in behalf of Muskie. I represented myself as a
Muskie aide. I called them by phone, invited them to the dinner for
Monday night, told them to wear their native garb.
4384
Then we called the limousine services and had a limousine pick each
one of them up and brin^ them to the Washin^on-Hilton, which was
regretful, but the result of it was embarrassing^ for Senator Muskie,
embarrassinor for the diplomats. And, of course, the chauffeurs were
less than happy about it also.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, when you had the leaflets printed up on that
occasion, did you try to implicate Senator Humphrey's campaijin in
that ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes ; we had them printed up at a local — it was a George-
town print shop. By "we," I mean myself and Mr. Segretti. We set
the type to it and did it there, had it run off there, acted like it was
going to be a great big affair. Then we left the address on the bill of the
Humphrey headquarters in town. Also, I think we left the name of
George Kennedy, who, I believe, was his northeastern campaign man-
ager, or something of that sort, figuring that the owner of the printing
shop would be alarmed and call the authorities to try to give them
some warning, anyway, and they would check it out and find out who
ordered or made up the leaflets. And of course, it would check back to
Humphrey headquarters.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you also talk with Mr. Segretti about activities
that might be pursued during the Democratic National Convention in
Miami ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes. We didn't go into a lot of detail about it. We were
supposed to or we were going to set a time aside, maybe in July, to get
together and go over the details of it. That never happened because
of the Watergate break-in, or rather the heat of the investigation. We
discussed getting possible advance lists of the delegate count of the
delegations for each State at the convention. "VSHien they are calling-
the delegation chairman, setting up an appointment for the candidate
to meet the delegation, representing ourselves as from that candidate's
camp, and, of coui-se, he would not show up, which would get the dele-
gation unhappy. In that manner we were hoping to probably do that
with everybody except McGovern because he was the desirable nom-
inee of the convention as far as we were concerned.
Also, this has been gone over several times. I am not sure it is actu-
ally a fact. There was supposed to be a flyover by an airplane trail-
ing "Pot, Promiscuity," whatever "Peace for McGovern." This was
ordered in about April or May, maybe June. I think about May. T am
not even positive if I left some money for it at one of the local skywriter
firms, whatever they are. I don't recall distinctly if I even left money
there, but I know I never contacted them again. I never personally
saw the plane trailing this message. Someone told me they had seen
a plane with some sort of weird message. I told that to Mr. Segretti
and apparently he thought it sort of exaggerated itself along the way.
It may have happened, but I have no personal knowledge of that.
Mr. Lenzxer. Mr. Kelly, did you rent some hotel rooms at Mr.
Segretti 's request?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Why were they rented ?
Mr. Kelly. I put some deposits down on them, I believe in May
again. The purpose was hazy. He didn't go into detail, mentioned that
there may be some people coming down, long hairs, hippies, possibly,
to demonstrate in front of the Doral Hotel.
4385
Mr. Lenzner. Now, during this period of time, with reference to
your activities for Mr. Segr^tti, did you obtain in your possession
certain records that reflected these activities?
Mr. Kelly. Would you repeat that, please ?
Mr. Lenzner. Did you have documents that you used or obtained
during this period of time that would have reflected your activities for
Mr. Segretti?
Mr. Kelly. Yes; I had copies of different fliers, different ideas and
notes and phone numbers that I did have in my possession.
Mr. Lenzner. What did you do with those documents?
Mr. Kelly. Well, I destroyed them. This is about September, I sup-
pose, or October of 1972, when this started coming out in the open. I
was getting calls from investigators and I was, of course, upset about
it. I wanted to, frankly, destroy what evidence there was of my involve-
ment. I just took it out and threw it away.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall which investigative agency was the
first to contact you ?
Mr. Kelly. Senator Kennedy's Subcommittee on Administrative
Practices — Government — Administrative Practices and Procedures
Subcommittee, I think is the title, I am not sure.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any record of when you were first con-
tacted by the FBI or the JJ.S. attorney's office in Florida?
Mr. Kelly. Yes; I think I was contacted by the FBI's office in
August. In late August, I was contacted on one occasion. This sub-
committee contacted me, I believe, about October.
Mr. Lenzner. Thank you very much.
I have no further questions.
Senator Baker. INIr. Chairman, before you pass the questioning to
minority counsel, I would like to introduce Mr. Howard Liebengood,
who will question the witness today, and also to announce, if I may,
that I am the senior Republican, the ranking Republican on the Pul)-
lic Works Committee, which is having an executive session at 11
o'clock. With the chairman and the counnittee's permission, I would
like to absent myself from the hearings in order to attend that.
Senator Ervin. Those things are unavoidable.
I would like to state also at this time that Senatoi- Talmadge is hav-
ing to attend a very important meeting of the Finance Committee.
You may proceed.
Mr. Liebengood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kelly, was your involvement in politics prior to your contact
with Donald Segretti conducted at the collegiate level ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes. sir, mostly.
Mr. Liebengood. Had you ever held a salaried position in any Re-
publican campaign ?
Mr. Kelly. Not salaried. I had a position where I had expenses paid
on several occasions.
Mr. Liebengood. What position was that?
Mr. Kelly. That was 1970, I was working for Governor Kirk's re-
election. In 1968, I was involved in the Students for Nixon on campus
and some local elections. There was a man running for Congress and
the State Senate that I was involved in.
Mr. Liebengood. Were there any political pranks involved in that
campaign ?
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11
4386
Mr. Kelly. Well, there were political pranks pulled, yes, sir. I don't
think there has been a campaign ever seen where there haven't been
some political pranks. Not to this scope, no, but there were some pranks
pulled.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Were the pranks, to your experience, pulled by
both sides of the campaigns ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. By people working for the campaigns?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Were you a student at the time you participated
in the activities with Mr. Segretti ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. You indicated in your opening statement that you
were initially paid a modest salary and that you were to be paid $700
a month ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Is my understanding correct that you were never
paid $700 a month ?
Mr. Kelly. I believe I was to start in June with $700 a month. In
May, I moved into an apartment in Fort Lauderdale and I received
an advance, I think, of $400 or $500 that was to be taken from — pro-
rated the next 3 months. I think I was going to receive $500 a month
for June, July, August. As it turned out, I did not receive anything
after that time.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did you continue with the same modest salary that
you started with ?
Mr. Kelly. No, sir.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Wliat was that salary, $150 a month?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. That was all you received?
Mr. Kelly. No; I received money for expenses. That was salary.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Now, when Mr. Segretti contacted you with regard
to negative campaigning, you indicated that you expressed some in-
terest in that when he said it. Did you liave any hesitation at all about
participating in these activities ?
Mr. Kelly. Well, if you are talking about the initial contact. No. 1,
I wasn't exactly aware what his activities were going to be.
No. 2, I did have some misgivings about taking part in it. I wasn't
sure what I was getting into. It was more of a gradual thing. I guess
I just kept digging a bigger and bigger hole for myself.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Do I understand correctly that you did this of yoiir
own volition ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Mr. Segretti did not persuade you with political
favors, offer any political favors or anything like that?
Mr. Kelly. No ; he did not.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. At any time?
Mr. Kelly. No ; he did not.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did Mr. Segretti ever tell you that he was em-
ployed by the CRP, the Republican National Committee, or working
for anybody in authority ?
Mr. Kelly. No, sir. Although I knew, I didn't believe that he came
from a wealthy family, whenever I asked him who he was working
4387
for, who he was working with, where he was getting his money, he
replied, I don't know, which of course, he was putting me off. He
said after the election, we would sit down and have a nice cold beer,
he would tell me the whole situation, maybe meet the boys, is the way
he put it.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Now, this variety of political pranks that were
pulled, were these all Mr. Segretti's ideas ?
Mr. Kelly. No. Some of them were mine. A minority of the
amount — several of them, I will put it that way — were my ideas. But
mostly I was working on his direction. There were some things that
were done that I did on my own, that! thought of and did.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Do you know how much thought or planning
went into the preparation of these ideas ?
Mr. Kelly. Well, that varied. ITsually. there wasn't a lot of prep-
aration. Often, we would think up something over the phone. Or on
the occasions I met with him in Miami, we would talk about them,
come up with something, maybe do it the next week or the next day
or something. There was never a schedule— that 5 weeks or 3 days
from now, we would do this, or in 6 weeks, we would do this.
I want to contradict one thing. I do believe we had a schedule, but
we never followed it. It was very general. The calendar we made up
was useless.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. I understand there was one instance testified to
yesterday by Mr. Segretti and alluded to this morning, where the
source of the materials you distributed did not originate with you or
Mr. Segretti ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir, there was an occasion of that.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. I am referring to the flier regarding Senator
McGovern's "real record on the war."
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Ostensibly prepared by Students for Honesty in
Government. Would you describe in some detail, how you came into
possession of that document ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. The University of Miami is where I got the
document. The Democratic organization on campus was divided into
several groups that were for different candidates — Democratic Presi-
dential candidates. The group that had the ]\Iuskie table set up had
this information on the table. That is where I got it from.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. And the Students for Honesty in Government,
was that a name that you put on the pamphlet, or was that a name that
was on there ?
Mr. Kelly. No, sir. That was a name that was on there. My guess is
that the Muskie organization didn't want to have their tag on it, but
nevertheless, it was on their table. It may not have been printed by
them, but they were distributing it. It more or less went into con-
tradictions of Senator McGovern's voting record and what he had
been saying, as I recall.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did you ever take part in infiltrating any
campaign ?
Mr. Kelly. No.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did you ever take part in any act of violence in
the campaign ?
Mr. Kelly. No, sir.
4388
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did you know whether or not any of your politi-
cal pranks that you have described resulted in violence ?
Mr. Kelly. Not in violence, no.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. You testified this morning that on March 14, the
day of the Florida primary, you sent pizzas and flowers to
headquarters ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr, LiEBENGOOD. Previously you had used stinkbombs?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Do you seriously think that any of these activities
had any impact on the outcome of the Florida primary?
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. In what way ?
Mr. Kelly. Well, on the Florida primary itself, possibly not. It cer-
tainly had an effect on the candidate. It certainly did not help Senator
Muskie.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. My understanding is that it was not your intent or
purpose to influence the public vote by your activities?
Mr. Kelly. That is right.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. But rather to create agitation among the respec-
tive Democratic candidates, is that correct ?
Mr. Kelly. That is true. Indirectly, this could be attributed to hav-
ing some effect on the vote, very slightly, only the fact if the candidate
gets irritated, it gets him to become less than casual before a group,
and I Avas referring to in New Hampshire where Senator Muskie was
crying in the Boston Globe.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Tliere is also an indication that you promoted cer-
tain demonstrations. Is it your impression that these, demonstrations
also had some effect on the vote as well as agitate the candidate, not
necessarily your demonstrations but demonstrations in general?
Mr. Kelly. I am not convinced they liad a direct effect on the vote
so far as the demonstrations are concerned. They are kind of common-
place now, especially during Presidential election times. But the pur-
pose of it was, if Senator Muskie or another candidate was speaking
somewhere, signs would be placed in a position where the press could
pick them up, it reduces more or less the pedestal effect of the candidate
standing there by himself without any indication of other candi-
dates around. "Wlien you have posters around of the other candidates,
he looks more like one of them, it is sort of a psychological thine;.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. "VVliat were your misgivings at the time you took
part in these activities ?
Mr. Kelly. My misgivings? Well, it would be nice to say I was re-
gretting it. I was not jumping for joy about it. I am not sure I real-
ized exactly what I was doing when I was doing it. especially when the
investigating started. I was scared more than anything else, and after
that. whv. I practically became immune to the pressure of the investi-
gatoi-s, the press calling constantly. I had more time to reflect about
this, what the heck I was doinc:, and I really cannot sav that at the
time I regretted it. Otherwise, I imagine I would not have been doin<r
it.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. At the time you were conducting these acti\nties,
did you feel you were participating in a type of activity that was part
and parcel of the American political system ?
4389
Mr. Kelly. No.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. You did not feel that way then ?
Mr. Kelly. I did not feel that it was part and parcel of the Ameri-
can system. No. I realized what I was involved in was of a much deeper
scope for lack of a better tenn, "sabotage," than possibly had been done
earlier, I had no personal knowledge of that, but I can only say from
what I had seen in other campaigns and previous activities I had taken
part in that the pranks and the silly things that are done were not to
this, were not of this scope. That is the only way I can really place it.
I cannot put it in that category.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. I trust you feel the same way today if not more so.
There is no place in the system for this tj^pe activity ?
Mr. Kelly. Absolutely not.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Tliauk you, Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Kelly, in Washington this morning I cannot
help but get the impression that you are rather pleased and proud at
your apparent success in political sabotage. Am I correct in that, sir?
Mr. Kelly. Your conclusion is very ridiculous. Possibly I am giving
a demeanor of confidence, or probably I act like I am happy with it;
that is not the case. I very much regret it. I feel — the damage, the per-
sonal damage and the mental misgivings are secondary to the guilt I
feel for the Senators and people whom I have hurt personally.
Senator Inouye. When did you begin to feel this regret, sir?
Mr. Kelly. I began feeling the regrets w^ien I started realizing, not
necessarily Avhen I was caught or was brought into it, I started feeling
this, I suppose about the time I stopped doing it, August, September,
Octobei", November. It was something that when I had time to^ — when
I was not doing it I had time to stop and think about it a little bit. I
attributed it to being politically immature, I guess I envisioned too
manv things, too much of it bad ; I guess I was overly ambitious and
frankly, I was expecting to have hiirh contact, I was not sure exactly
who I was working with, but I had an idea it was maybe the T^Hiite
House or the reelection committee and my ideas of short-term suc-
cess I am afraid, were very unfortunate. If we had gotten away with
it. Senator, and we had not been caught I assure you, Senator, I would
feel at least as guilty.
Senator Inoitye. I gather from your responses this morning that you
were not aware of Mr. Segretti's real identity until after the election?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. I did not find out what his real identity was
until I read it in the newspaper.
Senator Inouye. And yet you were willing to follow his advice and
involve youreelf in criminal activity from someone unknown to you?
Mr. Kelly. Well, he was not necessarily using me. I kind of felt of
myself — as possibly not mavbe a tool of using me. I was thinking of
after the election maybe a iob in Washington. I am not rationalizing
any of my actions at all. You know, any shame or abuse that can be
heaped on me is certainly well desei-ved but it is not something that is
going to make any difference. I feel as guilty now as I did 2 weeks after
or I will 2 weeks from now.
Senator Inouye. Were you ever concerned about the legality of your
activities ?
4390
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. And still you persisted ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. It began witli pranks, it started getting more
and more intense. I was aware that some of the things I was doing
were not legal. I would be lying if I told you otherwise, I knew some
of them were illegal. I kind of just — it was just like I was weaving my
own spiderweb, I could not get out of it. I was in a hole too deep. It
is easy now for me to look back and say, "Gosh, why didn't I just say
forget it, don't bother me any more,'" but as I said earlier, I can only
attribute it to being immature, to being overly ambitious, and I have
asked myself a thousand times why did I do it.
Senator Inouye. As a once promising young political leader, looking
back in retrospect, I would like to list several of your activities and
if you would be so kind as to tell this committee whether you con-
sidered these activities unethical, immoral or illegal. False advertising.
Mr. Kelly. Illegal. Unethical. You can say all three of them to that.
Senator Inouye. Distribution of misleading literature without iden-
tifying the source.
Mr. Kelly. Or identifying an incorrect source you could add, I
would say all three again.
Senator Inouye. Fake invitations to nonexisting events.
Mr. Kelly. The same.
Senator Inouye. Fake press releases.
Mr. Kelly. The same.
Senator Inouye. False and untrue letters designed to injure the
candidate of the opposition party.
Mr. Kelly. The same.
Senator Inouye. Stinkbombs.
Mr. Kelly. Foolish, the same thing.
Senator Inouye. Forcibly entering into a headquarters.
Mr. Kelly. I did not do that.
Mr. Beck. Senator, what are you referring to in that regard?
Senator Inouye. Mr. Segretti suggested that they forcibly opened a
window to drop a stinkbomb.
Mr. Kelly. I did not do that.
Mr. Reck. I do not believe Mr. Kelly was involved in that at all.
Senator Inouye. I am sorry. Ordering material supplies, food, bever-
ages, limousines in behalf of an opposition candidate Avith no intention
to pay for this.
Mr. Kelly. The same.
Senator Inouye. Inviting ambassadors of foreign countries.
Mr. Kelly. The same.
Senator Inouye. Do you believe there is something inherently wrong
in engaging in activities for which the real perpetrator seeks to avoid
responsibility ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Senator Inoi^ye. Is there something Avrong which interferes with
each party not being able to select freely their best candidates?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir ; I believe that is true.
Senator Inouit:. Is it now your conclusion that the people of Florida
were not given the right to freely select their best candidates?
Mr. Kelly. I think that is kind of a sweeping generality to say
that most people were not because of my activities. I think most people
4391
were very much unaware of the activities that were taking place. The
candidates themselves were; there were not that many votes affected.
However, I agree with yon that even if one person was affected by
it adversely, that it was wrong. They should have had a free choice
of decision.
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Senator Gumey.
Senator Gurney. Mr. Kelly, let's go to this distribution of literature
which you made. I know here in the witness summary item 2 is distri-
bution of misleading literature. Would you give us an idea of how
much literature you distributed down in Florida ? State some examples.
Mr. Kelly. OK.
Senator Gurney. What I am trying to find out is whether this — I
don't know how to characterize this operation. I think I used the
word "rinky-dink" yesterday and I think that is really what it was.
"Wliat I am trying to find out is, really, did it have any effect upon
this election. So wliat kind of distribution did you make?
Mr. Kelly. Well, Senator Gumey, before I answer that specific
question, I want you to understand that the literature that was dis-
tributed wasn't necessarily distributed to influence the amount of votes
in an election. The person receiving it wasn't — even if 50 of these
were passed out, 50 are not going to affect the election.
Senator Gurney. I agree.
Mr. Kelly. What we were doing was that we were expecting at least
1 of those 50 to be enraged enough to show that to the candidate —
for the candidate to become upset about it. If it was blamed on an-
other candidate in the primary election to cause, discord, malcontent,
and it wasn't necessarily a direct effect on the vote; it was the effect
on the candidate that we were interested in.
Senator Gurney. I might comment on that. I think every one of
the 100 Senators who serve in the Ignited States has had all kinds of
dirty tricks played on him in the course of political campaigns and
we expect it. I am not so sure how much it upsets us. I could give you
examples in my own campaign, that are far more horrendous than
some of these here, that worked against me — that you don't really pay
much attention to it because you expect some of these things.
But anyway, how much distribution did you make and, incidentally,
I am not minimizing this dirty-trick business. I loathe it, but it is a
part, of politics, and it is a part of both sides of politics, all of us in
politics know and expect some of these things by some of the frinare
elements. I hope our deliberations here perhaps will produce legis-
lation and laws that will be better al^le to control this. But back again ;
what about the distribution now? Give us some examples of how^
widespread you distributed some of these things.
Mr. Kelly. All right; I will give you some examples. At the Uni-
versity of Miami, there was a flier put out around campus, former Sec-
retary of the Interior Udall was supposed to speak in behalf of, I be-
lieve, the Young Democrats on campus. They decided to cancel his
engagement there because they felt he was, maybe, less than an effec-
tive speaker. We found out about it. We put up fliers all over campus
announcing the time and place they had previously set and canceled
Secretary Udall 's speech, so they had to put him back on the schedule,
4392
I understand, and also from what I understand, it didn't go over very
well — ^the speech.
Senator: Gurney. Who was he speaking for ?
Mr. Kelly. He was being hosted by the Young Democrats, speaking
to tlie student body.
Senator GuRisrEY. I mean, was he peaking jh behalf of one. of the
candidates ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir; I believe he was speaking in behalf of Senator
MuSkie.
Senator Gurney. So in this event you might have helped Senator
Muskie by making sure that Secretary Udall appeared, is that right ?
Mr. Kelly. Well, if I am to believe the reports from Muskie's staff,
he was not that effective a speaker, and I am not sure.
Senator Gurney. Give us some other examples.
Mr. Kelly. There were some leaflets passed out in Miami Beach
that were — I am not completely clear on it; I think they were sup-
posedly to be from Lindsay knocking Muskie's stance or Humphrey's,
I am not sure which, on his stance for Israel — how he feels that Israel
should be treated the same way as Cuba, our relations with Cuba.
These were passed out and put under the windshield wipers of cars
parked at the synagogues.
Senator Gurney. How many ?
Mr. Kelly. Maybe 100 or 200. These were fliers — excuse me.
Senator Gurney. Do you think this had much effect on the election ?
Mr. Kelly. Well, again, sir, I can't, of course, put a statistic on what
it did in terms of votes. I am sure it is very small. But again I refer
that the purpose was not to affect votes in the Florida primary. It was
to cause malcontent, discomfort among the candidates, to get them
backbiting and to feel that they were sabotaging each other.
Senator Gurney. I noticed you mentioned that some of your work,
you thought, may have hurt Senator Muskie ; but I see here one of the
fake press releases said that Hubert Humphrey had not supported his
military assistance for Israel as Senator Muskie. Now I know some-
thing about Florida politics ; if that went out, that would do nothing
except help Senator Muskie vis-a-vis Senator Humphrey, because that
was the one big issue, of course, among the Jewish population in Dade
County, which is as well today.
Mr. Kelly. I can't recall exactly what you mean by that. I can
assure you if we put it out it was not for the benefit of Senator Muskie.
Senator Gurney. I see there is one notation here that you helped
distribute the reprint of a Newsweek article about Mrs. Muskie.
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. I won't go into the article ; it is here in the exhibits ;
but I will summarize it by saying it was a pretty good hatchet job on
Mrs. Muskie, wasnt it?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir, and it was written by Newsweek.
Senator Gurney. How many of those did you put out?
Mr. Kelly. Well, they were reprinted — they were passed out, I
believe, at Senator Muskie's picnic he had there, the same which we
had the stinkbomb, for lack of a better phrase.
Senator Gurney. How many would you say ?
Mr. Kelly. A couple of hundred.
Senator Gurney. Well, I might point out that Newsweek, which is
owned by the Washington Post, has a circuation of 2,725,000. I think
4393
they probably did a much better job than you did — doing a hatchet job
on Mrs. Muskie.
Mr. KJELLY. Well, that would have been worked in tandem, as a com-
plementary thing to what we were doing.
Senator Gtjrney. I must say I read it and I don't think much of it
either. I don't know why they printed it.
You worked in Florida exclusively, except for the trip to Washing-
ton ; is that right ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. Did any people work with you ?
Mr. Kelly. All the people that I would hire ; I refrained from using
friends or political associates for the reason that I wasn't overly proud
of what I was doing even though I did not quit ; I wanted to keep it a
secret; my parents didn't even know about it and I was living at home.
If I was to be caught, they would be dragged into it also.
Senator Gurney. How many were engaged in your operation ; how
many people did you hire to help you ?
Mr. Kelly. Well, I never had full time. At different times, I would
say, 20.
Senator Gurney. These were the people, I suppose, who handed out
leaflets and things like that ?
Mr. Kell.y. Yes, sir. I would say between 20 and 30.
Senator Gurney. You are familiar, probably, with the political cam-
paign, as a whole, in Florida, are you not? I mean you had some idea
of what went on because of your interest in politics?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. Isn't it true that there were thousands of young
people in Florida on the Republican side and also on the Democrat
side, for that matter, who were working hard in legitimate ways for
the reelection of President Nixon and also the candidacy of Senator
McGovern ? Isn't that a fact ?
Mr. Kelly. There were indeed, sir.
Senator Gurney. Thank you very much.
Senator Ervin. You say that you didn't intend to influence votes?
Mr. Kelly. Well, if that happened also, we didn't try to stop it. If
some votes were influenced, that is fine, too ; but that wasn't the main
purpose.
Senator Ervin. Now the truth is that Mr. Segretti told you that the
j>olls showed that Senator Muskie was running ahead of President
Kennedy, didn't he ?
Mr. Kelly. President Kennedy ?
Senator Ervin. I mean President Nixon.
Mr. Kelly. I don't believe so ; no.
Senator Ervin. Well, he told you that the polls showed that Muskie
was the Democrat who had the best chance to beat President Nixon.
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And, therefore, it was the policy of those in charge
of the campaign to try to knock out Muskie as the candidate?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Yes.
And there is a presumption of law and a presumption of common-
sense and a presumption of logic that a man is presumed to intend the
natural consequence of his acts.
You put in a radio advertisement on the Miami radio?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
4394
Senator Ervin. What size city is Miami ?
Mr. Kelly. Well, the city itself, I suppose, has a million people.
Senator Ervin. Yes.
And thousands and thousands of them are Cubans, are of Cuban
ancestry, aren't they ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And many of those Cubans had become naturalized
American citizens who were elio;ible to vote in the primary?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. How often did you run this radio advertisement in
which you stated that Muskie was in favor of Castro ?
Mr. Kelly. I think it was run one or two times.
Senator Ervin. And you can't tell us hoAv many of the hundreds of
thousands of people, a million people, in the Miami area heard that,
can you ?
Mr. Kelly. How many Cubans did you say ?
Senator Ervin. No, people.
Mr. KeI;LY. People.
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. Keli,y. Not many outside of the Cubans because it is a Spanish
radio station.
Senator Ervin. Well, Castro and Cuban communism was one of the
most unpopular men and one of the most unpopular issues in Florida,
wasn't it?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And you tell me you didn't intend to influence any
Cubans, voting Cubans, or their sympathizers in having this radio
broadcast the false statement that Muskie was in favor of recognizing
Castro and Communist Cuba ?
Mr. Kelly. No, sir, I didn't say that. I said that wasn't the main
purpose. I said, yes, that is fine; and I said an overwhelming majority
of Cubans are not Democrats. They could not vote in the Democratic
primary. I would say about 80 percent are Republicans so it wasn't
necessarily to influence votes in the Democratic primary. It was to get
the Cubans upset at Muskie.
Senator Ervin. I have found out in many States that many people
register in the name of a party. Have you ever examined the registra-
tion books to show how many thousands of Cubans were registered to
vote in the Democratic primary ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. How many?
Mr. Kelly. I believe in the Democratic primary — let me see if I can
put the exact number on it — I think it was 14,000 ; I am not exactly
sure. I think 25,000 or 30.000 Republicans.
Senator Ervin. All of them have sympathizers, don't they ?
Mr. Kelly. Have sympathizers?
Senator Ervin. Yes; people who sympathize with their plight and
strongly opposed to the recognition of Castro.
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Yes. Well, that is what you did for the Cubans.
Now, you know that there has been a great deal of controversy, and
one of the most sensitive issues in the State of Florida for several
4395
years has been the involuntary busing of schoolchildren to integrate
schools ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And you knew that a large part of the white popu-
lation of Florida was opposed to busing?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. So you falsely pictured that Muskie wanted to have
more busing instead of less, didn't you ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And don't you think that that had a natural tend-
ency to aifect Muskie's chances among people who were opposed to
busing ?
Mr. Kelly. Well, it certainly didn't help his chances, but I would
venture to say the other Democrats running didn't have much of a
different stance, except for Wallace.
Senator Ervin. But you didn't advertise them, did you, unpleas-
antly— just Muskie?
Mr. Kelly. I think we did. I think Senator McGovern in another
part of the State was advertised for doing that.
Senator Ervin. That is what you did for the white population.
Mr. Kelly. OK.
Senator Ervin. Then Miami has a tremendous Jewish population,
doesn't it?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. One of the largest Jewish populations of any city in
this country, doesn't it ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And you put advertisements in the newspapers in
Miami tliat — or rather you distributed what you called a yellow flag
under the false pretense it had been written by another Democratic
candidate, Lindsay, in which he charged that Muskie was opposed
to the aims of Israel, didn't you ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervtn. So we have from your own admission that you
were aiming at Cuban voters, you were aiming at the white voters,
you were aiming at the Jewish voters to influence them against INIuskie,
Now, you also engaged in lying advertisements to influence the
black vote, didn't you ?
Mr. Kelly. "Wliat was that again, sir?
Senator Ervin. You also entered into — you made advertisements to
influence the black vote in Florida, which is considerable, isn't it?
Mr. Kelly. I am not sure exactly.
Senator Er\t[n. Didn't you distribute as far as you could, and you
had the assistance of 20 other people doing it, the statement that
Muskie thought the time had not come to have a black candidate for
vice president?
Mr. Kelly [conferring with counsel]. I think that was in Tampa.
INIr. Beck. Senator, I think you are confusing Mr. Benz' activities
with Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. That may have been done, I may have done that, I don't
recall it.
Senator Ervin. Well, Mr. Benz was operating in conjunction with
you and Mr. Segretti, wasn't he ?
4396
Mr. Keixy. Unbeknownst to me ; yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Yes; and then you o:ot after the liberals, to influ-
ence them against Muskie by stimulating; this document [exhibit No.
158*] which has been oifered in evidence called Citizens for a Liberal
Alternative.
Mr. Kelly. I don't — I am not positive that I was involved with
that either. That is vei-y unclear. I think I mentioned to Mr.
Senator Ervin. Well, are you positive or not?
Mr. Kelly. No, sir, I am not positive.
Senator Ervin. A synopsis made by the staff allefjedly on the basis
of your information to them states, as I understand it, that you did
distribute that document.
Mr. Lexzxer. Senator, we went over that last nijrht and Mr. Kelly
was not suT-e that he — T think the document was familiar to him but
he couldn't recall whether he had distributed that document or not.
Senator Ervin. Then you tried to appeal to the conservative, staid
people of Florida to be ai<i;ainst Muskie by hiring a naked woman to
run in front of his headquarters yelling;, "I love Muskie," didn't you?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir, that is true.
Senator Ervin. Well, I have heard a lot in this investigation about
coverup activities and I think that might be one.
And then you not only made attacks on Muskie but you deliberately
distributed the hatchet job which Newsweek had done on Muskie.
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And you still state on your oath that you didn't do
any of these things for the purpose of influencing votes of anybody ?
Mr. Kelly. I can easily illustrate that to you again if you would
like. You are talking about influencing the Jewish vote — we might
have passed out 50 of them.
Do you realize how many Jewish votere there are in Miami Beach ?
You are referring to the Cuban vote, a small percentage of which
voted in the Democratic primary. As far as the white people on the
busing issue, I think if you w411 look back, the candidates themselves
were, especially Wallace, was using that issue for more than we were
referring to the busing stand. I am not denying some votes may have
been influenced very directly but. Senator Ervin, the purpose, almost
the complete purpose, of this was for when you pass out 40 or 50 or
100 flyers in a Jewish — Miami Beach where there are thousands of
Jewish voters, you are not intended to sway 50 or 100 or 200 votes, you
are trying to get that back to the candidates, have them irate about
it, have the candidate become upset, to take action maybe back to the
other candidate, do something, but its inherent purpose is to upset the
candidates and to try to cause divisiveness.
Senator Ervin. You sure did that, did you not ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. As a result of activities on your ]iavt and others
in the Florida primary, the front running Democrat, Senator Muskie,
was knocked out. His candidacy was virtually destroyed, was it not?
Mr. Kelly. I would not say solely from this. I would certainly say it
helped.
Senator Ervin. Well, you contributed to that.
*SeeBook 10, p. 4055.
4397
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And Mr. Segretti contributed to it and Mr. Benz
contributed to it ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And you received money which came ultimately
from the President's personal attorney for your activities, did you not ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Now, do you go to college ?
Mr. Kelly. No, sir, not now.
Senator Ervin. Well, have you gone to college ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Did you ever read Shakespeare ?
Mr. Kelly. Not as thoroughly as some, sir.
Senator Ervin. Well, did you ever come to this passage in Shake-
speare :
Good name in man and woman, dear Lord, is the immediate juror of their
souls ;
Wlio steals my purse steals trash ;
Tis something, nothing.
Twas mine.
Tis his, and has been a slave to thousands.
But he that filches from me my good name,
Robs me of that which not enriches him and makes poor indeed.
Now, do you not think that you engaged in activities which were
calculated to rob Senator Muskie and Mrs. Muskie and others of their
good names among the voters of Florida ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
I might add that I am not liere, sir, defending my position. I do not
have a position to defend. I regret very much what was done. I simply
tried to ex])lain to you what our purpose was.
Senator Ervin. And in addition to spreading false statements, mak-
ing false advertisements, you also disseminated forged press releases
on tlie letterhead of Muskie's campaign committee?
Mr. Kelly. I never signed anytliing, but there were attacks, Senator.
Senator Ervin. But you distributed them ?
Mr. Kelly. No, sir, I never distrilmted anything with a forged
name.
Senator Ervin. I did not say that. I said a forged paper.
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And you consider this — I started to say — rises above,
but I will say descends below the pranks level ?
Mr. Kelly. I feel that way without a question.
May T add one thing? I mentioned to Mr. Lenzner that, of course, it
is easv when you are before a committee or you are interrogated by a
j>:rand jury to say, "Gosh, I am sorry I did it, I really feel regretful."
I know vou do not expect someone up here to say, "I did it, great, I
will do it a<rain." I understand that. You cannot completely convince
somebody that you do feel guilty or hud about these things. It is 2
vears ago, but I still feel very bad. I told Mr. Lenzner that I would
verv much like to. since I have firsthand knowledge, I was participat-
inpT in these acts, that T would like to write to him, a report of what
I feel could be done to legislate, to possibly make pranks misdemeanors
or Dunishable by law. I will do that.
Senator Ervin. There is another poet that says :
4398
Tbe moving finger writes,
And having writ moves on,
Nor all your piety nor wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel a single line ;
Nor all your tears
Wash out a word of it.
which I think is very unfortunate.
But I would like to know why you did it because you knew it was
wrong. You look like a person who has had a good opportunity in
life and come from a good home.
Mr. Kelly. I appreciate that, sir. As to why I did it, I have asked
myself that question a thousand times. I regret it. It was stupid. As I
said, I was overly ambitious. I expected temporary success and as I
said, even if I had — I could not have had a conscience if I did not
feel guilty. Even if I were sitting up here in a different position. I
will always look back, realize how I got it, who I was working with.
If I could continue on under those circumstances, then I would not
deserve to be on earth.
Senator Ervin. Well, I will have to pay you the compliment of
saying that you are entitled to the blessings of the scripture, where it
says, "Blessed is he who sweareth to his own word and changeth it
not," You have been very frank with the committee and you are to be
commended in that.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, sir.
Senator Ervix. Senator Weicker.
Senator Weicker. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I think that
Mr. Kelly's statement, that you know that it is easy to say I am sorry
when you are before a committee or a grand jury — it is not easy. I do
not think it has been easy for you. And quite frankly, not eveiTbody
who has appeared before this committee, or those who have not ap-
peared before this committee, have said, I am sorry. Some of them
actually have tried to sell it as legitimate or justified by the fact that
these things were done in the past. I find neither of those attitudes on
your part and I just want to commend you for your very frank state-
ment.
Mr. Kelly. I appreciate that.
Senator Ervix. Senator Montoya.
Senator Montoya. Mr. Kelly, would you please go into a little more
detail as to what motivated you to go into this kind of activitv and
to do the vers' things that you did and about which you have testified?
Mr. Kelly, Well, sir, at the outset — if I knew what the scope was
at the outset, I am sure I would have been frightened away and I
would not have wanted it to take place. It became more and more
apparent to me as I worked with Mr. Segretti that he had access to a
lot of money. I perceived, although he never told me, that he was
probably working with people in the administration; I guessed the
"V^Hiite House or the Committee To Re-Elect the President.
My political outlook was. frankly, immatui^o in that I was expecting,
you know, something for — not nothing in this case, something
pretty bad. I realized when I first got into it that it was wrong. I was
not sure that it was going to be the scope that it was. It just got to a
point where a little bit more was done, and a little bit more was done,
things that were fringing around the law — pranks; putting other
candidates' bumper stickers on other candidates' posters that were up,
4399
instead of tearing them down ; stinkbombs, things of this sort. Some of
them were frankly comical ; at the time — I thought some of them were
comical. Some of them I enjoyed. Most of them I did not.
Senator Montoya. But you realized right along that they were bad ?
Mr. Keul-y. Yes, sir ; I knew it was a dirty campaign.
Senator Montoya. And you kept trying to make them worse?
Mr. Kelly. Well, I do not think it was a level, like each one was
worse than the other. There were different things done at different
times. I do know that later on, the more illegal things that were done —
for instance, the Washington-Hilton affair, Senator Muskie s fund-
raising dinner, that was in April. That was one of the last things that
was done. I am convinced that I would not have done that in the
beginning. If I had just come into it, I am sure I would not have done
it. But it was a gradual thing. I am not sure that if it came to the point
where he asked me to kill somebody — this is hypothetical — anything
of that sort, I would do it. I would not have done it. I would never
have injured anybody. I was not asked to. But it did get to an extreme
where it was the personal damaging of people and their political career,
possibly.
Senator Montoya. I notice that toward the last, you were planning
on parading a nude woman past Muskie headquarters and she was sup-
posed to shout, "Muskie, I love you.'"
Mr. Kelly. Well, that is not exactly the case. TVliat that was, is
there was a girl that was hungry for money. She needed some money,
so I told her — I didn't know her. She was going to Gainesville, where
the University of Florida is. I was told Senator Muskie was there.
I gave her $20, $10, I don't remember how much, and asked her if I
gave this to lier if she would be willing to take off her clothes and run
in front of his hotel, screaming, "I love you" — which she did, un-
fortunately.
But slie did.
Senator Montoya. You must have known her very well.
Mr. Kelly. Again unfortunately, no.
Senator Montoya. How did you have so much confidence to ask her
to do this?
Mr. Kelly. Well, it was more of a money thing as far as she was con-
cerned. I certainly wouldn't approach somebody off — I shouldn't say
off the street — off. campus and offer to pay them $20 to strip and run
in front of somebody's hotel, j^articularly around there. So I was very
surprised that she would do this. I didn't expect it to happen, but it
was just something that did happen.
Senator Montoya. Now, did you also send some letters out to some
of the lieadquarters without stamps ?
Mr. Kelly. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Do you know of any of the others who did ?
Mr. Kelly. Well, as far as others are concerned, I knew of no one
else involved witli Mr. Segretti. I know that I personally would not do
anything of that sort.
Senator Montoya. Were you aware of any pranks practiced by the
Democratic candidates or their people ?
Mr. Kelly. Nothing out of the ordinary. They were ripping down
each others signs, which is something that in practically every cam-
paign that has ever taken place has happened, whether the candidate
does them or not.
4400
Senator Montoya. Anything as serious as what you were doing?
Mr. Kelly. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Don't you feel that because of what you did, you
have really lost your dignity and decency as a man ?
^ Mr. Kelly. No. If I didn't regret it, I* feel I would. I am not ready to
shoot myself, if that is what you mean.
Senator Montoya. Do you think that regret restores a man's dignity
and decency ?
Mr. Kelly, I think it is a start.
Senator Montoya. Well, then, you are starting on it.
Mr. Kelly. Well, sir, I am trying.
Senator Montoya. Now, did you feel at any time since speaking to
Mr. Segretti about this, planning and so forth, that you were repre-
senting either the Committee To Re-Elect the President or the people
in the White House or both ?
Mr. Kelly. Did you ask me if I felt that ?
Senator Montoya. Yes.
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir ; I felt that.
Senator Montoya. Did Mr. Segretti indicate to you in any way
that you were really working for these people ?
Mr. Kelly. No, sir ; he never did.
Senator Montoya. What made you have this feeling of participa-
tion with these people ? There must have been some indication.
Mr. Kelly. Well, the indication was I knew that Mr. Segretti's
activities were of a wide nature. I knew that he was going to other
States. He showed me some of the literature that was used in different
places, that perhaps I would recognize but didn't use myself. I knew
his expenses must be quite high to l>e flying around the country this
much. I just couldn't think of any other source, financial source, that
could possibly be operating at that time. When I would refer to
whether he was working for the "Wliite House or the Committee To
Re-Elect the President, he would just say, "I don't know, I will explain
after the election."
I did know he had extensive activities, but I was not aware of who
he was talking with. It was just my feeling. He never gave me an
indication that that was the case. Plus the fact that I suspected Mr.
Devant — ^this was never clear, still — I guess it is now — that it was
Mr, Devant he had been in contact with. I knew he was an advance
man for President Nixon in 1968, so there was a correlation there.
Senator Montoya. "When you came to Washington, did you visit the
White House?
Mr. Kelly. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Were you in touch with anyone working at the
White House?
Mr. Kelly. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. During the Washington trip ?
Mr. Kelly. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. "V^Tio else were you in touch with besides Mr.
Segretti at that time ?
Mr. Kelly. Nobody.
Senator Montoya. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Ervin. Senator Muskie — I mean Senator Gurney.
Seantor Gurney. Mr. Chairman, now that you have mentioned Sena-
tor Muskie, I would like to go back and clear up a point a little bit.
4401
Senator Ervix. I tcl] you, I hove been talking about him so much
with the witness.
Senator Gurney. Do you agree, Mr. Kellv, with most political an-
alysts that perhaps one thing that hurt Senator Muskie more than
anything else is his emotional outburst in the New Hampshire
primary ?
Mr. Kelly. I do.
Senator Gurney. It is easily understandable why that happened.
He is a proud and sensitive man as well as a fine Senator. And, of
course, that was precipitated by the Newsweek article, was it not?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. The New Hampshire primary occurred, did it not.
before the Florida primary ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes. sir. I think there was an article in the Boston Globe
he was upset about, not simply the Newsweek article. And that
was
Senator Gurney. In any event, it did involve a hatchet job on Mrs.
ISIuskie ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. A very fine, wonderful woman that the Senator has
every right to be proud of. That is really what precipitated the emo-
tional outburst in New Hampshire, is that not correct?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney, And this occurred, as I said, before the distribu-
tion of these few reprints of the Newsweek article you and your people
made in Miami, Fla., is that right ?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. There were activities, understand, going on be-
fore— I am not sure if anything was done in New Hampshire or not. I
am not completely sure there was anything done before that at all in
terms of sabotage. But I would agr-ee with you that it was the attack
on Mrs. Muskie that brought on his crying.
Senator Gurney. Do not misunderstand my questions. I in no way
approve of what you and your people were doing in Florida. I think
this is a great injustice to the political system that we could do without
completely, and politics and Government would l>e much farther
ahead. But I do like to try to bring the true picture and the facts. Do
you really feel that your activity really had any weight at all in decid-
ing how people were going to vote in the State of Florida in the Demo-
cratic primary ?
Mr. Kelly. Possibly not in the State of Florida. I think it would
have had some effect as to postconvention attitudes.
Senator Gurney. I am talking about the Florida primary.
Mr. Kelly. The Florida primary?
No, sir; I do not think there was a marked effect as to the direct
vote.
Senator Gurney. That is all.
Senator Ervtn. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. No questions, sir.
Senator Ervin. Well, you do not think that the publication of the so-
called Canuck letter in New Hampshire and the activities of Donald
Segretti and yourself in Florida were calculated to make Senator
Muskie or any other man have a sweet disposition, do you ?
Mr. Kelly. No, sir ; I certainly would not.
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11
4402
Senator ER\^^^ In fact, they were intended to have exactly the op-
posite effect, were they not?
Mr. Kfxlt. That was the intention ; yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Lenzner.
Mr. Lenzner. Just one or two questions.
Mr. Kelly, with reference to that New Hampshire incident involv-
ing Senator Muskie, did you make reference to that in some of the
literature you handed out?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Could you just describe what that was to the com-
mittee?
Mr. Kelly. Yes sir; I believe it was referred to in one of the fliers.
I think it was the lunch flier, the bo^is lunch that was supposed to be
held by Senator Muskie. I think it referred, something to the effect,
come and hear Senator Muskie explain why he broke down in New
Hampshire. That was included on one of the fliers.
Mr. Lenzner. I take it that you favor legislation in this area, and
1 would appreciate receiving, as I know the committee would, your
ideas in this area. Would you also take into consideration when you
write that, if you could, what the possible impact or effect might be
if you multiplied your activities throughout the State, with other
people doing similar things, and multiply those kinds of statewide
activities in other primary States? If you would also give us your
judgment on that, I think we would appreciate it.
Mr, Kelly. I will, thank you, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. That is all. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. My experience in politics has been, and I have been
in it a long time, that one man can tell a lie about a candidate one day
and then it is all over the community the next day. So I don't accept
your theory that because you just put on two radio advertisements
about INIuskie's attitude toward Castro that the repercussions of that
stopped when you took the thing off.
Mr. Kelly. No, sir; to repeat myself, there were, I am sure, some
effects of that. But that was not the direct purpose.
Senator Ervin. In other words, it is just like throwing a rock into
a pond. The waves just keep going until they reach out to the shores.
Nothing seems to spread as fast as false rumors and false charges.
Mr. Liebengood.
Mr. Liebengood. I have no questions, ]Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock.
[A'SHiereupon, at 11 :50 a.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at
2 p.m., the same day.]
Afternoon Session, Thursday, October 4, 1973
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. Before the next
witness is called I will read for the record this memorandum addressed
to me by Phillip K. Beck, counsel for Martin Douglas Kelly, dated
October 4, 1973. At Mr. Beck's request.
The morning session was adjourned before I had an opportunity to state on
the record my client's and my appre<»iation for the excellent coo]ieration of the
committee's staff counsel, particularly Mr. Terry Lenzner and Mr. Marc Lackritz.
They conducted themselves in an exemplary fashion both professionally and as
4403
gentlemen. This committee is fortunate to liave men of tlieir caliber assisting
them.
Please enter this into the record.
Respectfully submitted.
Phillip K. Beck,
Counsel for Martin Douglas Kelly.
Counsel will call the next witness.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Robert Benz.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Benz, will yon stand np and raise you right
hand?
Do yon solemnly swear that the evidence tliat yon shall oive to
the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities
shall be the truth, iha, whole trutli, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Terry Lenzner, assistant chief coun-
sel, will question the witness.
Mr. Lenzner. Thank you.
Mr. Benz, you are accompanied by counsel. Will counsel identify
himself, please?
Mr. McLaughlin. Delbert L. McLaughlin.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, we might note for the record Mr. Benz
lias been granted immunity ])ursuant to a court order.
Senator Ervin. Let the record show as a result of the unanimous
request of the committee. Judge John J. Sirica, chief judge of the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, has en-
tered an order requiring tliis witness to testify and granting him im-
munity under sections (1002 and 6005 of title 18 of the United States
Code, so that the testimony of ]Mr. Benz is given pursuant to this
order of immunity, and he is entitled in subsequent proceedings to
all of the ])rotections which the order of immunity and the statutes
involved place around him.
Mr. Lenzner. Thank you, Afr. Chairman.
Mr. Benz, will you tell the committee your address ?
testimony of robert m. benz, accompanied by delbert l.
Mclaughlin, counsel
Mr. Benz. 14605 North 4-Sd St., apartment ?,0, Lutz, Fla.
Mr. Lenzner. How are you employed ?
Afr. Benz. I am a dock superintendent.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, you have had prior political experience, have
you not, prior to the Presidential election of 1972 ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Could you briefly describe those experiences? You
were in — I take it vou were manager of a Senate campaign in Florida,
is that right?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. You are also president of the Young Republican Club
down there?
]Mr. Benz. I was.
]\Ir. Lenzner. Did you receive a phone call from a man who identi-
fied himself as Donald Simmons in November of 1971 ?
4404
Mr. Brxz. No, sir.
Mr. Lenzxek. When was that phone call made ?
Mr. "Benz. December of 1971.
Mr. Lenzner. What was it, what did Mr. Simmons say to you ?
Mr. Benz. He was interested to see if I would be interested in being
involved in a voter researcli project.
Mr. Lexzner. Is that all he said ?
Mr. Benz. And he desired I meet him.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you meet him ?
Mr. Bexz. Yes, sir.
iVIr. TjOexzner. Where was that?
Mr. Bexz. Causeway Inn at Tampa.
Mr. IvExzxer. And what was your discussion at that time ?
Mr. Bexz. He first asked me my past experience in different cam-
paigns, and he then stated that he would be interested in my becoming
involved in an effort to cause disruption in the Democratic primaries.
Mr. Lex^zxer. Did he specify anything, any methods or activities
you might engage in for purposes of disruption ?
Mr. Bexz. Yes, he did.
Mr. Lexzxer. Can you explain those?
Mr. Bexz. He was interested for me to obtain hecklers, pickets,
and also to get people to infiltrate into the campaigns, to gather
information.
Mr. Lexzxer. Now, the records show, and you told us, that you
talked telephonically to IMr. Segretti on a number of occasions, a
person you now know as Segretti, and you also met him in person
on a number of occasions.
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lexzner. And during those discussions did he further define
what his and what your strategy was supposed to be with reference
to the specific Democratic candidates in the Florida primary ?
Mr. Bexz. Well, the overall strategy w^as to concentrate on Senator
Humphrey, Senator Muskie, and Senator Jackson, and to just gen-
erally cause a disruption among these camps.
Mr. Lexzner. Were you supposed to concentrate your resources on
any particular candidate ?
Mr. Benz. At that time it was Senator Muskie.
Mr. Lexzner. Did you receive any money from ISIr, Segretti?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. How much was that ?
Mr. Benz. On what occasion?
Mr. Lenzner. The first occasion.
Mr. Benz. $50.
Mr. Lenzner. And did you arrange to receive a regidar salary
from him?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. How much was that?
Mr. Bexz. $150.
Mr. Lexzx'^er. For how long?
Mr. Bexz. We did not specify the length of time.
Mr. Lenzner. Was it a week or a month?
Mr. Benz. I received that amount on a monthly basis.
Mr. Lenzner. And did you also receive expenses ?
4405
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzxer. Did he also toll yon that he would provide money
for infiltrators into the Democratic candidates' campai;^is at some
point ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, after you ao^reed to work for Segretti. did yon
approach individuals to reciiiit them?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. "Wlio was the first person yon approached ?
Mr. Benz. Miss Griffin.
Mr. Lenzner. Can yon g:ive the committee her fii-st name?
Mr. Benz. Pat, Patricia.
Mr. Lenzner. What did yon ask her to do ?
Mr. Benz. To join the Mnskie camp.
Mr. Lenzner. And did she agree to do so?
Mr. Benz. Yes; she did.
Mr. Lenzner. Did yon arrange with her to have a story as to why
she wanted to join the Muskie camp?
Mr. Benz. Yes; I did.
Mr. Lenzner. Would you describe that?
INIr. Benz. She stated to the Muskie people that she was a Republi-
can, that she did not care for the President's policies, and that she was
now a backer of Senator Muskie.
Mr. Lenzner. How much money did von pay her per month ?
Mr. Benz. $75.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, did you next approach somebody with the first
name Debbie?
Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did.
Mr. Lenzner. You can't remember her last name ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. "V^Tiat did you ask her to do ?
Mr. Benz. To infiltrate one of the campaigns.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember which one?
Mr. Benz. It was either Humphrey or Wallace, I don't recall which.
Mr. Lenzner. Did she agree?
Mr. Benz. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Did there come a time when you did obtain an infiltra-
tor into Senator Jackson's campaign ?
Mr. Benz. Correct,
Mr. Lenzner. Who was that ?
Mr. Benz. Miss Frohlich.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you spell that please for the committee ?
Mr. Benz. Probably not correctly.
Mr. Lenzner. Give it to us as best you can, Mr, Benz.
Mr. Benz. F-r-o-h-l-i-c-h.
Mr. Lenzner. What was her first name ?
Mr. McLaughlin. E-s-e-1-e-n-e, the last I heard someone spell it.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you know her through the Young Republican
activities ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you pay her $50 a month ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
4406
Mr. Lenzner. Did you have a conversation with her about the
legality of her activities?
Mr. Benz. I could have.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember what you said to her about that?
Mr. Benz. I don't recall it specifically.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember telling her that you had a lawyer
for her if there were any problems ?
Mr. Benz. I remember telling someone that.
Mr. Lenzner. You don't remember if it was Miss Frohlich ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you tell a number of people that ?
Mr. Benz. I could have.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you also recruit an individual by the name of
George Hearing?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. He is presently in jail, is that correct?
Mr. Benz. The last I heard. [Laughter.]
Mr. Lenzner. And he is in jail on the indictment in Florida on the
so-called sexual conduct letter, is that correct ?
Mr. Benz. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Wliat are the charges against him ?
Mr. Benz. For not having a proper identification on a letter.
Mr. Lenzner. And that is the letter, is it not ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. "What did you recruit him for?
Mr. Benz. Field activities.
Mr. Lenzner. Did Mr. Hearing ask you who you represented when
you hired him?
Mr. Benz. He could have, I don't recall.
Mr. Lenzner. And you told him that you were doing this in behalf
of President Nixon, do you recall that?
Mr. Benz. I could have.
Mr. Lenzner. You don't recall that now ?
Mr. Benz. I told that to some people. I don't specifically recall if 1
told that to Mr. Hearing or not.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you also i-ecniit Ki]) Edwards?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. And that was also for so-called field activities ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Ajid Gary Yancey also for field activity ?
Mr. Benz. Just for one event.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you also attempt to get people to infiltrate Gov-
ernor Wallace's campaign on occasion?
Mr. Benz. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Now after Miss Griffin infiltrated Senator INfuskie's
campaign, what kind of information did she pro\ade you ?
Mr. Benz. Various campaign information, campaign literature, just
information on a general campaign strategy.
Mr. Lenzner. Did she provide you with stationery from Senator
Muskie's campaign ?
Mr. Benz. Yes : she did.
Mr. Lenzner. Did she provide vou with the names of the campaign
staff?
Mr. Benz. Yes ; she did.
4407
Mr. Lenzner. Did she also describe their roles?
Mr, Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Did she give you an analysis of their weaknesses and
strengths ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Did she also give you the names of precinct captains
for Senator Muskie ?
Mr. Benz. She gave me some of the names of precinct captains.
Mr. Lenzner. Did she also provide you with the names of financial
contributors ?
Mr. Benz. Some of them.
Mr. Lenzner. Did slie provide you with schedules of Senator
Muskie's travel and meetings with private groups ?
Mr. Benz. She provided, I can specifically recall her providing me
with some of Senator Muskie's arrangements.
Mr. Lenzner. Did that include meetings with private groups, to
your recollection ?
Mr. Benz. I am sure it was not an extensive report but I am sure —
I recall her giving me some information.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, Miss Frohlich who infiltrated Senator Jack-
son's campaign, did she also provide similar information?
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Was that information sent on to anybody ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. "Wlio did you send it to ?
Mr. Benz. A post office box that I was given.
Mr. Lenzner. By wliom ?
Mr. Benz. Mr. Simmons or Mr. Segretti.
Mr. Lenzner. Now the information that you were obtaining, were
you also using that information to conduct your so-called field
activities ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, shortly after you agreed to work for Mr. Sim-
mons, did you receive a letter postmarked "California" instructing
you to do something ?
Mr. Benz. It could have been postmarked "California."
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember what it asked you or instructed
you to do ?
Mr. Benz. Basically it was a letter requesting that I acquire pickets
at any rallies that President Nixon might attend in the area.
Mr. Lenzner. And were these ralliers supposed to carry signs or
appear to come from another candidate's camp ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Which candidates were they supposed to represent?
Mr. Benz. One of the Democratic candidates.
Mr. Lenzner. Senator Humphrey, Senator Muskie, or Senator
Jackson ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you obtain any pickets to do that ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir ; I did not.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, Senator Muskie appeared in Tampa in Jan-
uary of 1972. Did you conduct any activities with regard to his appear-
ance at that time ?
4408
Mr. Bexz. Yes ; we did.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe those to the committee?
Mr. Benz. "We released a press release and sent that to, I believe,
the newsmen, and we also acquired 10 pickets that picketed the hotel.
Mr. Lenzner. Was that press release based on information you
received from Miss Griffin ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. AVhat was that information ?
Mr. Bexz. Basically, it was the information that Senator Muskie
was usino; Government-owned typewriters provided by a Congressman,
also that Federal employees were involved in his campaign and not
on leave of absence.
Mr. Lexzner. Mr. Benz, are you talking now about the press re-
lease that you sent out
Mr. Benz. I am sorry, I am confused. I am soriy.
Mr. Lenzner. Let me see if I can refresh your recollection. You
did send out a press release referring to a reception and private dinner
that Senator Muskie was going to have, is that correct?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. And you received that infonnation from Miss Griffin,
is that correct?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. You sent that out, I take it, on Senator Muskie's
stationery ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
M. Lenzner. To the news media ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. What was the result of that effort ?
Mr. Benz. I don't recall a specific result.
Mr. Lenzner. Wasn't the dinner that had been planned canceled
as a result of that ?
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, who do you have hire the pickets ?
Mr. Benz. Mr. Hearing,
Mr. Lenzner. Did they carry signs?
Mr. Benz. Yes; they did.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe the nature of those ?
Mr. Benz. They were in reference to Muskie's statement concerning
a black Vice President would not l)e acceptable.
Mr. Lenzner. How much were thev paid, if vou rememlier ?
Mr. Benz. Maybe $100.
Mr. Lenzner. Lid you instruct Mr. Hearing on what they should
do if questioned about who they represented ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. And what were they told ?
Mr. Benz. To state that they represented one of the other Demo-
cratic candidates.
Mr. Lenzner. Senator Jackson, or Senator Humphrey ?
Mr. Benz. One of those.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you also learn that Senator Jackson Avas to ap-
pear for the opening of his headquarters in Tampa in January of
1972?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
4409
Mr. Lenzner. Did you take any action with regard to that?
Mr. Benz. Yes, I did.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe those ?
Mr. Benz. Tliose Avere the activities where I hired a Mr. Yancey
and a Mr. Edwards to sit across the street with some signs, something-
stating to tlie fact tliat "Believe in Muskie"" or "Muskie Countr3\"
Mr. Lenzner. Were you on the scene that day ?
Mr. Benz. Yes ; I was.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you observe Senator Jackson witli Mr. Yancey
and Mr. Edwards ?
Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did.
Mr. Lenzner. Was a photograph taken of tliat?
Mr. Benz. Yes ; there was.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you see it reprinted in newspapers ?
Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did.
Mr. Lenzner. Was that widel}- circulated, to jour knowledge,
throughout the country ?
Mr. Benz. I don't know.
Mr. Lenzner. It was in the local area ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you also observe Mr. Segretti in the area ?
Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did.
Mr. Lenzner. Did thei'e come a time after that incident when you
had your field operations conduct a picket at Senator Muskie' train
stop in Florida ? Campaign train stop ?
Mr. Benz. Could you repeat the question, please ?
Mr. Lenzner. Did you have pickets at Senator Muskie's train stop
in Florida ?
Mr. Benz. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Where was that ?
Mr. Benz. In Winterhaven.
Mr. Lenzner. And did they carry signs?
Mr. Benz. Yes ; they did.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe those signs ?
Mr. Benz. "Wallace countrA'."
Mr. Lenzner. I am sorry ?
Mr. Benz. "Wallace country."
Mr. Lenzner. Who were those pickets?
Mr. Benz. Mr. Hearing, Mr. Edwards, and a gentleman by the name
of Duke.
Mr. Lenzner. And who was this individual named Duke? Did you
know anything about his background ?
Mr. Benz. Mr. Hearing had told me that he was a former member
of the Nazi Party.
Mr. Lenzner. Were yon conducting these pickets at Mr. Segretti's
direction ? I mean, did you do this operation at his direction ?
Mr. Benz. We were in contact.
Mr. Lenzner. Had he advised you of the train schedule?
Mr. Benz. Yes, he had.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you also discuss the possibility of disrupting Sen-
ator Muskie's train schedule by furnishing false information to his
headquarters office about his schedule?
4410
Mr, Benz. Right.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you also obtain pickets at a speech that Senator
Muskie gave at the University of Southern Florida ?
Mr. Benz. I do not recall which Presidential candidate it was that
appeared at the University of Southern Florida. I obtained pickets
that did go out to the University of Southern Florida.
Mr. Lenzner. I take it you obtained pickets on a number of occa-
sions for a number of candidates, is that what you are saying?
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you also attend two rallies for Governor Wal-
lace?
Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did.
Mr. Lenzner. And did you distribute or have distributed literature
at one of those rallies ?
Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did.
Mr. Lenzner. Wliere was that?
Mr. Benz. St. Petersburg, Fla.
Mr. Lenzner. I believe that document is tab 18 [exhibit No. 214*],
but I would like to hand you, if I can, a copy and ask you if that is
the document that you were handing out at that rally, or one similar
to it?
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you read that, please?
Mr. Benz. "If you liked Hitler, you'll just love Wallace."
Mr. Lenzner. AVliat does it say on the other side ?
Mr. Benz. "A vote for Wallace is a wasted vote. On March 14, cast
your vote for Senator Edmund Muskie."'
Mr. Lenzner. Can you recall how many of those you distributed?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you estimate it ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you recall having about 500 or 1,000 of those
printed ?
Mr. Benz. It could have been that.
Mr. Lenzner. Could it have been more ?
Mr. Benz. I do not really recall.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you also receive in the mail posters which are
now, one of which is now in evidence, saying, "Help Muskie support
busing our children?"
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you distribute those?
Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did.
Mr. Lenzner. Where did you distribute those ?
Mr. Benz. In the northern section of Florida,
Mr. Lenzner. Can you name the cities ?
Mr. Benz. Jacksonville, Daytona, Orlando.
Mr. Lenzner. Did yon have Mr. Hearing also distribute those?
Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did.
Mr. Lenzner. Where did he put them up ?
Mr. Benz. In the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater area.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, you started to, in response to another question,
talk about a letter which appeared to come from a former Muskie
volunteer.
♦See Book 10, p. 4292.
4411
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Would you look at tab 9 [exhibit No. 205*] of the
documents ?
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you have that letter prepared ?
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. And did you have it typed on that stationery ?
Mr. Benz. Yes; I did.
Mr. Lenzner. That is Senator Muskie's stationery ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. And did you have it sent to anybody ?
Mr. Benz. Yes; we did.
Mr. Lenznfjr. Where was it sent ?
Mr. Benz. I believe it was sent to the news media.
Mr. Lenzner. Was it also sent to Senator Jackson's campaign ?
Mr. Benz. Probably was.
Mr. Lenzner. If you will look on the front of that document, it
seems to indicate that the letter was directed to Senator Jackson's
campaign and a copy was sent to another office of Senator Jackson.
Is that accurate ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, in March of 1972, did Mr. Segretti indicate to
you that something hot was coming in the mail ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. And did you thereafter receive some items in the
mail?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe what those were ?
Mr. Benz. That was the letter concerning the sexual misconduct of
Senators Jackson and Humphrey.
Mr. Lenzner. And what else was in the package?
Mr. Benz. Stationery, envelopes.
Mr. Lenzner. Was that Senator Muskie's stationery ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. What did you do with that, with those materials?
Mr. Benz. I gave it to Mr. Hearing.
Mr. Lenzner, And what was he instructed to do with them ?
Mr. Benz. Mail them.
Mr. Lenzner. The letter was retyped on the stationery?
Mr. Benz. The letter had to be duplicated on the stationery.
Mr. Lenzner. And who did he mail them to?
Mr. Benz. As I recall, it was supporters of Senator Jackson.
Mr. Lenzner. "\Yliere did you get those names?
Mr. Benz. From Miss Frohlich.
Mr. Lenzner. Miss Frohlich was inside Senator Jackson's cam-
paign ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. And that is the letter that you referred to before that
Mr. Hearing was prosecuted on, is that correct ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, did Mr. Segretti also give you three vials of
some chemical substance sometime in March of 1972 ?
1=896 Book 10, p. 4279.
4412
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. What discussion did you have with him at that time?
Mr. Benz. I cannot recall the conversation, but I do recall him in-
structing me to place this liquid substance into the headquarters of
Senator Muskie, the two headquarters in Tampa. And also at the
picnic. I do not recall if that was at that particular time or not.
Mr. Lenzner. Was this shortly before the primary of March 14 ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Wliat did you do with those ?
Mr. Benz. I gave them to Mr. Hearing.
Mr. Lenzner. And to your knowledge, what did Mr. Hearing do
with the chemical compoimd ?
Mr. Benz. As he told me, he placed those into the headquarters of
Senator Muskie.
Mr. Lenzner. Into two headquarters ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. They were two different locations ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Was one of the headquarters called the telephone
bank?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Were these placed the day before the primary ?
Mr. Benz. Evening.
Mr. Lenzner. The evening of the primary ?
Did Mr. Hearing indicate how they gained entrance to those build-
ings?
Mr. Benz. They did not gain entrance.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, how did they get access to them ?
Mr. Benz. Access to the building?
Mr. Lenzner. So they could throw or do whatever they had to do
with the chemical ?
Mr. Benz. Well, in one building, there was a hole in the window
which they dropped the substance through. In another building, as it
was told by me, the screen was open and the window was open and they
dropped it in.
Mr. Lenzner. They didn't tell you that they removed the screen?
Mr. Benz. That is correct, as I recall.
Mr. Lenzner. "Which is correct, that they did remove the screen or
they didn't?
Mr. Benz. As I recall, the screen was already open.
Mr. Lenzner. Wliat did Mr. Hearing do with the other chemical ?
Mr. Benz. They took that to the picnic. It was a Senator Muskie
picnic and they emptied the vial at the picnic.
Mr. Lenzner. Where was that picnic held ?
Mr. Benz. It was on the grounds of the Mary Help of Christians
Church School.
Mr. Lenzner. You and Mr. Segretti observed that picnic, did you
not?
Mr. Benz. No ; we did not.
Mr. Lenzner. You were not in the area ?
Mr. Benz. Not at the time of the picnic.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you pay Mr. Hearing for those ?
Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did.
4413
Mr. Lenzner. How much did you pay him ?
Mr. Benz. Probably $100, something to that effect.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you later see any of those incidents published in
any newspaper?
Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you send Mr. Segretti the clippings?
Mr. Benz. Yes ; I did.
Mr. Lenzner. Did there come a time when, at Segretti's request, vou
left the State of Florida ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Wliere did you go ?
Mr. Benz. Pittsburgh, Pa.
Mr. Lenzner. "\Yliat was the purpose of that trip ?
Mr. Benz. To start the same type of organization that was in
Tampa?
Mr. Lenzner. And did you contact people for the purpose of that ?
Mr. Benz. Yes, I did.
Mr. Lenznek. Now, I take it that was to infiltrate campaigns and
possibly disrupt political events ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner, Did you also travel to Milwaukee, Wis., with
Segretti ?
Mr. Benz. Not the complete way with Mr. Segretti.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, from Chicago with him ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. What did you do when you got to Milwaukee?
Mr. Benz. We distributed the campaign fliers that had the informa-
tion concerning the free chicken barbecue.
Mr. Lenzner. At whose campaign was that supposed to be at ?
Mr. Benz. Senator Humphrey's.
Mr. Lenzner. I take it that was an event that you created ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Would you look at tab 14 [exhibit No, 210*] of your
documents ?
Is that the leaflet you distributed in Milwaukee ?
Mr. Benz, That is correct,
Mr. Lenzner. And that advertises all you can eat for free, with beer,
wine, and soda ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. It also advertises the appearance of some individuals.
Would you indicate which individuals you indicated were going to
appear ?
Mr. Benz. Senator Humphrey, Lome Greene, and Mrs. Martin
Luther King.
Mr, Lenzner, And what areas of the city did you distribute that in ?
Mr. Benz. All the areas of town.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember approximately how many you
distributed ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Going back to the picnic where the chemical was dis-
tributed, do you recall telling the FBI agents who interviewed you in
*See Book 10, p. 4285.
4414
INIay of this year that yon drove down to tlie INIuskie picnic on Snnday
eveninof and noticed that the chemical had been distributed?
Mr. Bexz. That is correct.
INIr. Lexzxer. So yon did sfo to the picnic area ?
Mr. Bexz. I did <zo to the picnic area. I did not attend tlie i^icnic, as
yon said before.
Mr. Lexzx^er. Thank yon, Mr. Benz. Tliat is very helpfnh
Now, did yon also discnss with Mr. Senrretti possible activities at
the demonstration — at the Democratic convention in the snmmer of
1972?
Mr. Bexz. That is correct.
Mr. Lexzxer. Wonld yon describe that discnssion ?
Mr. Bexz. He basically mentioned that I possibly misfht be needed
to travel to one of the conventions to join in on some of the demonsti-a-
tions.
Mr. Lexzxer. And did he indicate that he wonld be hirin^: other
individnals for that pnrpose ?
Mr. Bexz. He indicated that he wanted me to inqnire to see if I
conld iret some others.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did he f nrnish yon any money at that time ?
Mr. Bexz. I do not recall him fnrnishino; any money at that time
specifically. He fnrnished me with money all dnrin^: the campaign
and I cannot recall the specific times at which he did.
Mr. Lexzxer. Now, did yon receive any indications from the people
that yon had inside the campaiarns as to what resnlts yon were achiev-
ing throngh yonr other activities?
Mr. Bexz. Only the Mnskie campaign.
Mr. Lex'zx-^er. "\Tliat did yon learn from that ?
Mr. Bexz. Well, the staffs themselves were annoyed abont what we
were doing.
Mr. Lex-^zxer. When yon indicated yonr activities to Mr. Segretti,
was he pleased by what von told him ?
Mr. Bex'^z. He generally was.
Mr. Lexzx'er. Did he indicate at any time that the people he was
working for were also pleased ?
Mr. Bexz. He might have.
Mr. Lexzxer. Yon don't recall now whether he did or didn't?
Mr. Bexz. Not specifically.
Mr. Lex-^zxer. Did yon have in yonr possession at one time docn-
ments and records relating to the activities yon testified abont ; is that
correct ?
Mr. Bex^z. Wonld yon repeat that qnestion ?
Mr. Lexzxer. Yoi; had materials and records relating to the activi-
ties that yon did for Segretti ; is that trne ?
Mr. Bexz. At one time : yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. And what happened to those docnments?
Mr. Bex^z. I destroyed them.
Mr, Lexzxer. When was that, do yon recall ?
Mr. Bexz. I believe I — it conld have been in the snmmer of 1972
and it conld have been in the fall.
Mr. Lexzxer. Is there any reason why yon destroyed those
documents ?
4415
Mr. Benz, Well especially when I saw Mr. Segretti's name and pic-
ture in the news media, that was the time that I destroyed any re-
maining information that I did have.
Mr, Lenzner. Wlien were you first contacted by any investigative
agency ?
Mr. Benz. I believe that was January of 1973 — the FBI — unless
you are referring to Senate investigation people.
Mr. Lenzner. No, the FBI. January of 1973 ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all I have.
Senator Ervin. There is a vote in the Senate. We will have to tem-
porarily suspend so members of the committee can go and vote.
[Recess.]
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. Counsel will
cross-examine the witness.
Mr, Liebengood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Benz, what were you doing when you were first contacted by
Mr. Segretti ?
Mr. Benz. I was a part-time student delivering newspapers for the
Tampa Tribune.
Mr. Liebengood. And you were going to school where ?
Mr. Benz. The University of South Florida.
Mr. Liebengood. Did you accept Mr. Segretti's proposition that
you engage in certain political activity on your own volition?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. Liebengood. Did Mr. Segretti make any promises of politi-
cal favors to you at that time ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Mr. Liebengood. Did he at any time make such promises or
overtures ?
Mr. Benz. He mentioned after the election the possibility of some
type of job ; he never was specific.
Mr. Liebengood. He was not specific ?
Mr. Benz. No.
Mr. Liebengood. Did Mr. Segretti indicate to you at the time of
his initial contact or thereafter whom he worked for ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Mr. Liebengood. Did you have any contact during the period of
time that you were performing activities with Mr. Segretti, any
contact with the Republican National Committee ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Mr. Liebengood. The Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Benz. Yes and no.
Mr. Liebengood. Would you explain that yes-and-no answer,
please ?
Mr. Benz. "\^nien I was — after we had finished this complete opera-
tion I was workino; for a candidate running for the State house of
representatives, and during the course of that I did come in contact
with people locally wiio were working in behalf of President Nixon's
campaign.
Mr. Liebengood. Was this during the period of time that you were
being engaged in the activities with Mr. Segretti ?
4416
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
ISfr. LrEBENGOOD. During that period of time from the time Mr.
Segretti first contacted you to the time that you ceased such opera-
tions, did you have any contact Avith any rejridar Republican
oro;anization ?
Mr. Benz. Excuse me.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. To include local campaio-n organizations.
Mr. Benz. Not in connection with this, not at all.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did Mr. Segretti give you any instructions with
regard to coordination of your activities with local Republican
organizations ?
Mr. Benz. No. Well, Mr. Segretti gave me the explicit instruction
not to — not to contact anybody within the Republican Party during
my actions.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. When did he give you this instruction ?
Mr. Benz. During the fii-st meeting.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. ]3id you follow that instruction ?
Mr. Benz. Yes, I did.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did you have any contact with a person who you
know to be Howard Hunt alias Edward Warren ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did Mr. Segretti ever explain to you or did you
ever ask, did you ever come into knowledge during the time that you
were working for Mr. Segretti as to the source of the money tliat he
was paying you?
Mr. Benz. No ; I never asked that.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. How much money did you sav he agreed to pay
you, $150?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Was this figure maintained throughout your per-
formance of work with him ?
Mr. Benz. Approximately.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Was $150 a month enough to sustain you at that
time in and of itself ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. I take it that money was not your primary motive
for engaging in these activities?
INI r. Benz. Tliat is correct.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. '^^Hiat was your primary motive for engaging in
these activities ?
Mr. Benz. I think that I could Ix'st explain that by stating the ques-
tion that Mr. Segretti put forward to me at the Causeway Inn when
he asked me whether T knew the difference between positive campaign-
ing and negative campai^nino-, and I answered the negative campaign-
ing— excuse me, lie asked me if I knew what negative campaigning was
and I answered that. "It is opposite of positive campaigning," and he
said, "Yes,"' and then I went on to explain some of the little dii-ty tricks
that were pulled on the campaign that I was involved in the 1970 elec-
tions and I also explained to him that many of the principals that were
iuAolved in the 1970 elections woi'e now managing the Democratic pri-
mary campaigns in Florida, and I also felt that this would be an op-
portunity for myself to give these people a little bit of the medicine
they have given me in the past.
4417
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Are you saying then that this was your primary
motive for acceptino; his proposition?
Mr. Benz. Well, I felt that in the past, in my local area basically, the
Democrats liad been almost on an election-type basis, always partic-
ipated in this form of action and as Republicans since we were in a mi-
noi-ity, we were unable to, we also had to strictly abide by the law. I
felt if the Democrats got a little bit of a dose of their own type of
activities then they would be little bit reluctant to do this to us in the
future.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. So you were taking the proposition that the two
wrongs would make a right?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. You engaged several people in several primary cam-
paigns to infiltrate the respective Democratic campaigns and I under-
stand you did this at the suggestion of Mr. Segretti.
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Were all those infiltrations at his suggestion?
Mr. Benz. Probably was.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Do you know, and will you tell the committee, the
rationale behind the infiltration of an opponent's campaign or in this
case respective Democratic opponents' campaigns?
Mr. Benz. I think that in most all the elections, including probably
some of the Senators who are sitting around this table here, have al-
ways desired information on their opponents and this was our same
desire to gather this information.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Wliat was your purpose in gathering the infor-
mation, what was done with the information once it was gathered?
Mr. Benz. We used it in order to plan our action, our action to
cause as much confusion among the Democrats as possible.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did you forward all the material procured from
the Democratic campaigns to Mr. Segretti ?
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did you operate on any of this information in-
dependently of coordination with Mr. Segretti?
Mr. Benz. I operated both independently and also in cooperation
with Mr. Segretti.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. There has been some evidence that you promoted
or were asked to promote incidents of heckling and demonstrations.
Can you tell the committee what the purpose of that activity might
be?
Mr. Benz. The same, you know, it is just to cause a confusion type
of activity among the candidates.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. I uotcd in the witness summary, and I think Mr.
Lenzner alluded to it in his questioning, that there was a recruitment
of George Hearing to participate in a Muskie train trip project where
there was literature passed out.
Was this literature passed out on the Muskie train ?
Mr. Benz. Are you stating that I said
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. I am asking whether or not the literature was
passed out on the Muskie train.
Mr. Benz [conferring with counsel]. We didn't pass out any liter-
ature at the Muskie train stop. That was pickets.
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 4
4418
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Ill other words, the information here that litera-
ture was passed out in conjunction with the Muskie train trip is not
accurate ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Thank you.
Now, do you have any knowledo;e of the fabled Canuck letter ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir ; none at all.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Is it safe to say that the bulk of your activity was
concentrated in the State of Florida ?
Mr. Benz. The bulk of it ; yes, sir.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Your activity in Pennsylvania was limited to
what?
Mr. Benz. Contactin^r one man that I asked to jiarticipate in basi-
cally the same as far as acquiring hecklers and pickets, and also to
send me any news clippings of any of the actions on the part of any
of the primary candidates and, in fact, that is just what this person
did. He always did whatever he sent me was just newspaper clippings.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Did you conduct any activities in the State of Wis-
consin other than the receipt of bumper stickers from ]Mr, Segretti
for use in Milwaukee, the delivery of flowers, pizza and chicken to
Senator Muskie's hotel room, and the preparation and distribution
of the fliers that have been ]:»reviously testified to ?
Mr. Benz. And also one time, two limousines.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Two limousines, was that the extent of your ac-
tivity in the Wisconsin primary ?
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Do you feel that any of these activities influenced
the outcome of the primaries in Wisconsin ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. What about your activities in Florida ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Was the purpose of your activity to influence the
outcome of these primaries or was that a secondary purpose?
Mr. Benz. That was probably a primary purpose at the beginning.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. You had indicated earlier that your goal was to
create disruption among the Democratic camps ?
Mr, Benz. That is correct.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Disseut, agitation ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Do you recall whether or not this was a primary
purpose of your activity ?
Mr. Benz. Well, that probably was the primarv purpose of just caus-
ing as much confusion among the staffs as possible, that was probably
the main primary purpose.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Do you think you succeeded in that purpose ?
Mr. Benz. In one of the candidates we probably did.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. I gleaned from your earlier answer that you were
motivated in part by a desire for revenge, that you hoped, as I under-
stood your answer, to impress upon others who might have been dis-
posed to this activity that, by virtue of your actions, this was an un-
desirable activity, is that what you were telling me ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
4419
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Now, can you think of any legitimate measures that
this committee might consider ?
Mr. Benz. Certainly.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. To halt this activity ?
Mr. Benz. Certainly.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Would you please give us the benefit of your
thinking?
Mr. Benz. Starting from the beginning, I think just prosecuting and
protecting Republicans and Democrats equally under the law ; I think
your prol3lem is going to be solved but if you do not take this type of
approach, then you are going to continue to have this.
Mr. LiEBENGOOD. Thank you.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Do you believe the fact that somebody did evil yes-
terday justifies you to do evil today ?
Mr. Benz. No ; I do not believe that.
Senator Ervin. That is what you said you did in this. You said
Democrats had done this. Can you tell me any time in the history of
the United States that aides in the White House and the President's
]3ersonal attorney made money available to people to spread lies and
libels on candidates of the opposition party ?
Mr. Benz. I do not know if that has been proven or not, Senator.
Senator Ervin. I have been engaged in and concerned with politics
for a long time and I have been interested in the political history of
the United States and I challenge you or anybody else to point out
a single instance in the liistory of this Nation, where money donated
to advance the political fortunes of a President, was used with the
consent of the President's assistants in the "Wliite House, to spread
libels against candidates of the opposition political party?
Mr. Benz. Are you asking me that question ?
Senator Ervin. Yes; there was a question mark after that.
Mr. Benz. I think the firet thing to answer that, can you tell me
whenever a President has been investigated by the news media and by
a committee as much as this one ?
Second, where were you in 1960 when it was accused that an election
w^as stolen out in Chicago? We are talking now about a campaign
being influenced and I believe you were a Member of the Senate when
it was accused that a campaign was stolen. Senator. Wliere were you
then? Where were you in 1964 and 1968?
Senator Ervin. I was right here in the United States and I never
heard of a campaign being stolen on the credible testimony of any
individual. And this is the first time in the history of the United States
that the Senate of the United States, by a unanimous vote, has been
moved by reports of rascality on a national scale to set up a committee
to conduct an investigation.
Now, you helped to circulate a report, that a candidate for President
was guilty of homosexuality, did you not?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Senator Er\t[n. Are you proud of your achievement?
Mr. Benz. I am not proud that I felt I had to do that ; no, sir.
Senator ER\qN. You did not have to do it. Nobody compelled you
to do it, did they ?
4420
Mr. Benz. Wliat people tell me is not the most compelling force
involved witli me, Senator.
Senator Ervin. You had never seen this man Segretti before in
your life until he came to you. Did you ?
Mr. Bexz. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. And you did it in this instance because he promised
you $150 a month and expenses, did you not?
Mr. Benz. Are you saying "because" ?
Senator Ervin. I say you did it in this instance because he prom-
ised to pay you $150 a month and your expenses?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. Well, why did you take the $150 a month and
expenses?
Mr. Benz. I needed to cover the expenses, Senator. I could not
afford to cover the expenses.
Senator Ervin. How long were you working or getting money from
Segretti?
Mr, Benz. Five or six months, maybe.
Senator Ervin. Five or six months. And that 5 or 6 months you
spent disseminating libels on people when you knew they were not
true, and did other things to disrupt the campaigns of Democrats
merely because they were Democrats. Is that not so?
Mr. McLaughlin. Could you repeat that ?
Senator Ervin. Read him the question.
[The reporter read the question.]
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Senator ER^^N. Well, why did you do it ?
Mr. Benz. I believe I stated my answer to that question before.
Would you like me to repeat it ?
Senator Ervin. Well, I asked you if you have ever known of Wliite
House aides authorizing the use of campaign funds to spread foul
slanders and libels against reputable men seeking political office?
Mr. Benz. I would not know that the money I used was White
House money.
Senator Ervin. You said possibly the Senators here on this commit-
tee have been engaged in tactics like that.
Mr. Benz. I would not know. You would know that.
Senator Ervin. You said we had possibly infiltrated campaign orga-
nizations of our opponents.
Mr. Benz. I said I believed that probably you Senators yourselves,
when you run a campaign, you are always interested in opponent
research and this is one way that maybe you used. This is maybe not
the most common way.
Senator Ervin. You are not testifying that I ever sent a spy into the
campaign organization of any of my opponents, are you ?
Mr. Benz. Only you would know that. Senator.
Senator ER\qN. Well, I will tell you, I have never done that and I
have been in politics since 1922. And I have never in that time known
or heard of things going on, at least in North Carolina, that you say
you perpetrated in Florida and Wisconsin.
Senator Weicker.
Wait, I have one more question.
4421
Do you not know that when you circulated that rumor, that false
libel about Senator Jackson and Senator Muskie, that that occurred
before March 1972 ?
Mr. McLaughlin. I beg your pardon, sir.
Senator Ervin. 1972. Before the primary in March. The primary in
Florida was in March 1972, was it not March 14 ?
Mr. Benz. Yes ; it was circulated before that.
Senator Ervin. And that became known down there, didn't it ? Ref-
erence was made to it in the paper.
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And you know it was reported to a U.S. district
attorney ?
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And you also know that nothing was done about it
by the U.S. district attorney that anybody could detect prior to April
of this year, more than 14 months after it was done.
Mr. Benz. I would not know that. Senator.
Senator Ervin. Well, you do know that Mr. Hearing, wlio associated
with you in your work, and Mr. Segretti were indicted in Federal
court in Florida in May or the last of April and the first of May 1973
for something that the Federal authorities there had known about as
far back as March of 1972.
Mr. Benz. Some of that was reported in the newspapers, sir, yes,
sir. I did read that in the newspaper.
Senator Ervin. And you know that Mr. Hearing pleaded guilty to
failing to identify the people that perpetrated this false libel on Sen-
ator Jaclcson and Senator Humphrey.
Mr. Benz. I know that, yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Well, you speak about enforcing the law. It seems
like to me that justice in Florida in the Federal courts was traveling
on somewhat leaden feet.
One thing you said I fully concur in. That is that the law ought to
be enforced against everybody.
Mr. Benz. That is absolutely correct.
Senator Ervin. And one thing that somebody deserves credit for is
the fact that there have been seven men convicted here in the District
court for trying to pollute the process by which Presidents of the
United States are nominated and elected, and since then, two of the
aides, three employees of the Committee To Re-Elect the President have
pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice, and that Mr. Segretti
has also pleaded guilty in connection with matters you and he were
interested in and that Mr. Hearing was sent to jail on account of the
same thing.
Senator Weicker.
Senator Weicker. I would like to continue the same line of question-
ing as the chairman, Mr. Benz.
As I understand it, the letter concerning or alleging sexual impro-
priety on the part of Senators Jackson and Humphrey, this letter was
totally false, was drafted by Mr. Segretti and turned over to you. Is
that correct?
Mr. Benz. It is correct that it was turned over to me, yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. Then what did you do with it ?
4422
Mr. Benz. I gave that information to Mr. Hearing, the packet.
There was other material with the letter also, Senator.
Senator Weicker. And you were the one who had hired Mr. Hearing
in the first instance ?
Mr. Benz. Earlier in the campaign, yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. So you had hired Mr. Hearing and you turned
that letter over to Mr. Hearing ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Senator Weicker. And as I understand it, Mr. Hearing is serving a
jail sentence right now on the basis of having distributed that letter?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Senator Weicker. Did you at any time appear in behalf of Mr.
Hearing and indicate that in fact, he was opei-ating on your orders?
Mr. Benz. Only in the grand jury I have, and speaking with the
FBI, I liave, and also speaking with vour committee staff, I have stated
that fact.
Senator Weicker. Well, I don't understand why it is, that ]Mr. Hear-
ing is in jail insofar as this letter is concerned.
How is it, in other words, that you seem to have gone completely free
in this matter and actually, you were the one who gave the orders on
the letter. I am a little bit confused on that.
Mr. McLaughlin. He was called before the grand jury on several
occasions and took the fifth amendment. The next time lie was called
before the grand jury, he was granted immunity from prosecution and
required to testify or to go to jail for contempt. He was advised by
other legal counsel than myself to go ahead and present testimony. He
did so. He had been granted immunity from prosecution by the grand
jury and the grand jury that had that information is the one that in-
dicted INIr. Segretti and Mr. Hearing.
Is that satisfactory ?
Senator Weicker. Then, am I correct in assuming that Mr. Benz was
a witness against Mr. Hearing, is that correct ?
Mr. McLaughlin. No, sir, Mr. Benz was not a witness against Mr.
Hearing, because INIr. Hearing did plead guilty and there was no trial.
Mr. Weicker. You referred to activities in 1970 which formed the
basis of your participation in the events which have been alledged to
you. Did vou ever lodge a complaint with law enforcement authorities
in 1970?
Mr. Benz. I reported everything to my superiors in the campaign.
I don't know what action they took on that. Senator.
Senator Weicker. But then how is it possible to go and blame the
justice system in Florida for what, according to you, didn't happen?
Mr. McLaughlin. I beg your pardon ?
Senator Weicker. As I understand it, the basis, the motivating fac-
tor of Mr. Benz' activities in the 1972 campaign, were the fact that
similar matters had been done to him in 1970, and apparently no action
was taken. I have asked him to specifically list those activities. I am
asking that now.
Also, I asked the question as to whether or not he filed a complaint
with the appropriate law enforcement agencies, which agencies, ac-
cording to Mr. Benz, did nothing ?
Mr. McLaughlin. He stated he was not sure. He turned the informa-
tion over to his supervisors and he is not sure whether they filed police
complaints or not. I don't know, either.
4423
Senator Weicker. Well, were your superiors Representatives?
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. Well, I am very confused as to how we are going to
blame — I mean there are a lot of things we can blame the Democrats
for, but I don't understand how we are going to blame the Democrats in
your situation in 1970 or the law enforcement officials in Florida.
How does that form the basis for getting riled and trying to do the
same thing to the Democrats in 1972 ? Can you explain that to me ?
Mr. Benz. Do you want specifics, Senator, the actions that were done?
Is this your question ?
Senator Weicker. Yes ; it is a question. I want to know from you —
you say that on the basis of your experiences in 1970, you felt the time
had come to— that turnabout is f airplay and that you are going to give
it to the Democrats.
Now, you told me that the dirty tricks that were apparently played
on you, you reported to Republicans. You have also told me that you
did not report them to any law enforcement agencies. How can you
blame, then, these matters on either the law enforcement agencies in
Florida or the Democrats ? Doesn't the fault lie in your own party in
failing to pursue the information which you gave to them ?
Mr. Benz. In many cases, the information was almost public knowl-
edge, Senator.
Senator Weicker. Well, that may be, but somebody has to go ahead
and file a complaint. Somebody has to give information. Did you do
that?
Mr. Benz. It was not my place to do that, Senator. It would have been
one of my superiors' positions to do that. I do not know if they did that
or not. They might have. Senator.
Senator Weicker. Well, then, in other words, it was the Republicans
in your organization, your Republican superiors who dropped the ball,
is that correct ?
Mr. Benz. I do not know if they dropped the ball or not. Senator.
Senator Weicker. Obviously, if they had gone ahead and lodged a
complaint with law enforcement agencies, you would have had to tes-
tify in that matter and apparently, you didn't.
Mr. Benz. Usually, it is dropped before it gets that far. Senator.
Senator Weicker. I suggest to you that you were given every oppor-
tunity to go ahead and go the legal route in 1970 on the matters that
you complain about and that they really don't form a valid basis for
your motivation in 1972.
Mr. Benz. In my mind, they do. Senator.
Senator Weicker. But on the basis of facts, they don't.
Mr. Benz. Your facts or mine. Senator ?
Senator Weicker. Your facts.
Mr. Benz. On my facts, they do, sir.
Senator Weicker. Well, then, you tell me how.
Mr. Benz. I believe I have answered that question.
Senator Weicker. You have not answered it. I will repeat what I
said to you earlier.
I asked you and had asked earlier, did you report these matters to
the appropriate law enforcement agencies ?
Mr. Benz. I reported those matters to my appropriate superiors.
Senator Weicker. Who were Republicans ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
4424
Senator Weicker. So tliat in nowise were the Democrats involved
in failing to prosecute these abuses?
Mr. Benz. Not in failing to prosecute, just in committing the acts.
Senator.
Senator Weicker. I believe in the staff hearing, on questioning from
Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Armstrong stated :
111 any prior campaigns that you had worked, were you aware of any attempts
to plant demonstrators or hecklers?
Mr. Benz. Sure.
Mr. Armstrong. What were those?
Mr. Bknz. I know wlien we were working for Cramer, we had all sorts of stuff
done against us by the Democrats.
Mr. Armstrong. How did .vou know they were being done by the Democrats?
Mr. Benz. There is no proof.
Mr. Rexz. That is correct.
Senator Weicker. So in other words, there are no facts to sub-
stantiate the theory which you put forth to this committee to justify
your own action?
Mr. Benz. I believe, Senator, that if this committee would investi-
gate campaigns such as the one that they have just investigated, they
are going to find the same similar acts.
Senator Weicker. In other words, you belong to the school that
says everybody has been doing it and this particular campaign wasn't
imusual at all?
Mr. Benz. That seems to be the general opinion with the exception
of politics, Senator.
Senator Weicker. And that this is exactly the way, at least insofar
as your experience is concerned, let me put it this way— the placing
of informants — that you were involved in here — placing of informers
in the Tampa headquarters of Senators Muskie and Jackson, the
releasing to the press of a scheduled f undraising dinner, anti-Muskie
pickets calling him a bigot, a fictitious letter alleging the use by Muskie
of aides and typewriters of Congressman Gibbons in Florida, the pick-
eting of Muskie's appearance with signs "If you liked Hitler, you will
love Wallace, Vote for Muskie," supervising the printing and distri-
bution of scurrilous letters about Senators Humphrey and Jackson,
and the placing of stinkbombs at Muskie picnics and Muskie head-
quarters— these are all the norm in Florida politics, is that correct?
Mr. Benz. Maybe not those specific acts. Senator.
Senator Weicker. Well, are there acts — ^are the acts that you are
discussing now, are they worse or the same? If they are worse I w^ould
like to hear about them. I would like to know of your experience in
these matters.
Mr. Benz. All right, would you like — 1970 was just one particular
example. There were others. But if you would like, I can give you the
complete nmdown of 1970 dirty tricks.
Senator Weicker. I certainly would. I would also hope that these
matters have been turned over to the appropriate law enforcement
agencies in Florida.
Mr. Benz. They have been given over to the FBI, Senator.
Senator Weicker. Given over to the FBI when ? At the time they
occurred or at the time this investigation started ?
Mr. Benz. I think we covered that before. Senator. That again—
I stated that I felt it was not my place to give that information over
4425
to the oflScials and I did give that information over to my superior
which I felt was my duty. As I said, I do not know whether they
turned it over to the officials or not.
Senator Weicker. You just said you gave it to the FBI. When did
you turn these matters over to the FBI ?
Mr. Benz. About a year ago.
Senator Weicker. At the time you were being investigated relative
to the 1972 campaign ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Senator Weicker. Well, that is a little late, isn't it?
Mr. Benz. It probably is.
Senator Weicker. Why didn't you go to the FBI before then ?
Mr. Benz, Again, I think I mentioned that before. Senator, about
five times.
Senator Weicker, Now then, my last question in this round is this :
What are your opinions of what you did ? Is this proper campaigning?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Senator Weicker. Well, what has brought about a change of mind?
Mr. Benz. I have always felt this was improper campaigning
activities.
Senator Weicker. And you knew it was improper when you did it,
but you did it anyway ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Senator Weicker, Well, I have no further questions on this round,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Senator Talmadge.
Senator Talmadge. Mr, Benz, do you have any regrets about your
activities in that campaign ?
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir ; sure.
Senator Talmadge, You are not proud of what you did then ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Senator Talmadge. You are contrite ?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Senator Talmadge, Do you have regrets that one of your sub-
ordinates, Mr. Hearing, serves 1 year in jail at the present time and you
are walking the streets free?
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. It makes you feel that you are quite lucky to be
free at the present time, does it not?
Mr. Benz. Correct.
Senator Talmadge. Wlien did you start feeling regretful about your
activity in that campaign ?
Mr. Benz, From the beginning.
Senator Talmadge. "When ?
Mr. Benz. From the beginning when Mr. Segretti approached me
at the Causeway Inn.
Senator Talmadge, Did you feel regretful enough at that time to
inform the FBI about your activities?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Senator Talmadge. Did you feel regretful enough to inform any
other law enforcement officer ?
Mr, Benz, No. sir.
4426
Senator Talmadge. Were you ever instructed not to speak to any of
the law enforcement officers?
Mr. Bexz. Just tlie opposite, sir.
Senator Talmaixje. Who informed vou to speak to tlie officers?
]Mr. Bexz. Mr. Setrretti.
Senator TAL^rAiKiE. Did you <ro to the law enforcement officers at that
time and speak the opposite?
Mr. Bexz. No, sir.
Senator Talmadge. Why did you remain silent?
Mr. Bexz. I remained silent until they questioned mc and I have co-
operated with them, sir.
Senator Talmadge. I believe you had two subordinates. One was
named Mr. Duke and the other one was named Mr. Hearing; is that
ri<2:ht?
Mr. I^EXZ. His nickname was Duke; I do not believe that was his
last luinie.
Senator Talmadge. One was named Duke and the other Hearintr?
Mr, Bexz. Correct.
Senator Talmadge. Did Mr. Hearing tell you that this man Duke
was a former SS officer for Adolf Hitler's storm troopers?
]\rr. Bexz. Correct.
Senator Talmadge. Did you believe that?
Mr. Bexz. No, sir.
Senator Talmadge. Did Duke ever tell you that?
Mr. Bexz. I do not recall if he ever did nor not.
Senator Talmadge. Did you feel that being trained by Adolf Hitler
and his storm troopers particularly qualified him for the duties that
yo\i assigned to him ? [Laughter.]
Mr. Bex-^z. T do not know of any training school that would train
him for this work.
Senator Talmadge. I coidd not hear you.
Mr. Bexz. I said I do not know of any training scliool that would
train a person for this type of work.
Senator Talmadge. Were not the activities quite similar? Did not
Hitler's Xazi storm troopers perform similar activities to what you
were engaged in, in Florida?
Air. Bexz. I would not know that, Senator.
Senator Talmadge. You have read some history of that period,
have you not ?
Mr! Bexz. Correct.
Senator Talmadge. You have read "Rise and Fall of the Third
Reich", I take it?
Mr. Bexz. Correct.
Senator TAL:\rADGE. Are not the activities of the Nazi storm troop-
ers somewhat similar?
Mr. Bexz. I do not recall if he ever did or not.
Senator TAL:vrADGE. I thought they were. T read about a good
many falsified documents during that era and libels and slander about
the opposition. It was one of the ways, as I recall, that Adolf Hitler
achieved power.
Do you think Duke carried on his activities in an exemplary fash-
ion in that manner, do you?
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir.
4427
Senator Talmadge. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Most of the questions I had in mind were asked,
]\Ir. Chairman, but, Mr. Benz, I would like to have your thoughts
as to whether the f ollowino; activities are legal or moral or ethical :
The distribution of misleading literature without the source being
identified.
Mr. Benz. That covers — it is not. Senator.
Senator Inouye. The sending of fake invitations to nonexistent
events.
Mr. Benz. It is probably not, sir.
Senator Inouye. It is not legal ?
Mr. Benz. Sending invitations — I guess it would depend upon
whether there was any name identification. Senator.
Senator Inouye. No; sending out invitations to events, nonexist-
ing events, such as the ones you sent out. Was that
Mr. Benz. If there is no name identification on it then it would
bo illegal. I do not have the information if there would be a name
identification on it whether it would break the law or not.
Senator Inouye. Even if it is legal, do you think it is moral or
ethical ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Senator Inouye. What about issuing fake press releases?
Mr. Benz. Right ; correct.
Senator Inouye. It is OK ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir, I am sorry ; it is not.
Senator Inouye. How about circulating false, salacious, libelous,
and untrue letters designed to injure the candidate of the opposition
party ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Senator Inouye. That is not legal ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Senator Inouye. Wliat about breaking and entering by forcibly
opening a window to place a stinkbomb in the headquarters of the
opposition party ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Senator Inouye. What about stinkbombs in general?
Mr. Benz. I do not know whether that is illegal or not, Senator.
Senator Inouye. You think it is a good thing in a political
campaign ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Senator Inouye. How about defiling a phone bank ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Senator Inouye. How did you carry this out, sir? I believe you
were involved in the defiling of a phone bank.
Could you describe to us what happened ?
Mr. Benz [conferring with counsel]. I think I have already cov-
ered when I received the material — ^you want to go on from there?
Senator Inouyt:. Yes, please.
Mr. Benz. I gave the material to Mr. Hearing with instructions
to place this material into the downtown headquarters, which was the
]ihone bank and also the Muskie headquarters. And he later told me
tliat he did in fact — there was a hole in the window of the telephone
4428
bank which they placed the substance through, and in the campaign
headquarters itself there was an open window, and that there
was a screen that I believe was loose and that he dropped it in there
which would be the utility room.
Senator Inotjye. Do you consider ordering supplies, food, bever-
ages, on behalf of an opposition candidate — with no intention of pay-
ment— legal, ethical, or moral ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Senator Inouye. Prior to Watergate and prior to the exposure of
your involvement in the sabotage activities, did you consider that the
money spent for furthering your sabotage activities was money well
spent in the effort to reelect the President ?
Mr. Benz [conferring with counsel]. I really would not know the
answer to that. Senator.
Senator Inouye. I will ask another one then. Was the reelection of
the President so important that any means would have justified
that end?
Mr, Benz, No, sir.
Senator Inouye, Are you, in your discussion with one of my col-
leagues here, suggesting that since the other party carried out dirty
tricks, your party was entitled to do the same ?
Mr, Benz. My belief at the time, sir, would be that if there were
some action in answer to that, to the other party's actions that in the
end — that they w ould pause a minute before they would, I was hoping
that this would be a deterrent to further actions of this type.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Ervin. Senator Weicker.
Senator Weicker. No questions.
Senator Ervin, How long did you work in Wisconsin ?
Mr, Benz. About 3 or 4 days, Senator.
Senator Ervin. You had no grievance against the people of Wiscon-
sin, did you — the Democrats of Wisconsin ?
Mr. Benz [conferring with counsel] . No, Senator.
Senator Ervin. But you played dirty tricks up there on them ?
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. You mean to tell me that you sincerely believed that
you were justified in disseminating false and scurrilous attacks upon
the characters of Senator Jackson and Senator Humphrey because
some Florida Democrats may have perpetuated some instance of which
you disapproved upon Congressman Cramer ?
Mr. Benz [conferring with counsel]. I was not justified, Senator, but
I was prompted.
Senator Ervin. Well, Cain felt it \\as proper to kill his brother Abel
but so far as I know he didn't offer much justification.
Mr. Lenzner. Just one brief question. Mr. Benz, we have checked
our records and checked the Special Prosecutor's office, and there is no
indication in regard to the conversations you had with the FBI agents
that you made any reference to any allegation involving Democratic
misbehavior. Do you want to refresh your recollection of the fact that
when you talked with the FBI, you did not indicate to them any such
allegations ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir, not all the time that they did take down the infor-
mation. I don't know if this was one of the times when the FBI did not
write this information down. They took this by handwritten notes.
4429
We talked for some 40 hours, Senator — excuse me, we talked for
some 40 hours and I have no knowledge of what they did write down
and what they did not.
Mr. Lenzner. And the two incidents that you related to us in re-
sponse to our inquiry as to Avhat information you had about other in-
cidents in prior campaigns, you indicated one was a poster that said
"Join the Askew-Cramer Club" and one time you said that somebody
came in posing as a radio reporter to interview, is that correct ?
Mr. Benz. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Those were the two instances you gave us ?
Mr. Benz. Those were two of the instances ; yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner, That is all I have.
Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya was in the telephone booth.
Senator Montoya. I am ready now, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Yes ; you may proceed.
Senator Montoya. Mr. Benz, you have made a lot by way of motiva-
tion of the existence of dirty tricks during the 1970 campaign, and you
have failed to produce any evidence or specific instances of dirty tricks,
but I want to ask you this question: Assuming that there were in-
stances of dirty tricks during any Democratic campaign in Florida in
1970, do you feel that this justifies you in maligning or vilifying honor-
able men who are seeking the Presidency of the United States ?
Mr. Benz. Not completely, Senator. But if somehow my actions, if
it helped to clean up the system of politics, I think it could be justi-
fiable.
Senator Montoya. Now, assuming that you would have similar feel-
ings about murder being committed by individuals, would you attempt
to commit murder in order to justify or clean up such conditions?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. All right. Doesn't the same analogy apply ?
Mr. Benz [conferring with counsel]. It should.
Senator Montoya. Well, does it ?
Mr. Benz [conferring with counsel]. I think we are talking about
oranges and apples. Senator.
Senator Montoya. Well, I don't think so. I think we are talking
about human beings, and we are talking about the dignity of human
beings. We are talking about the free electoral process. We are talking
about the American people w^ho deserve the truth in political cam-
paigns. Don't you think that they deserve some consideration?
Mr. Benz. A hundred percent.
Senator Montoya. Why didn't you give them that consideration?
Mr. Benz. I felt that I was, sir.
Senator Montoya. You felt that you were giving them that consider-
ation by spreading lies about Senator Jackson and Senator Muskie?
Mr. Benz. I believe I have given my testimony as to why — what my
justification was, Senator.
Senator Montoya. Is that what you call giving consideration to a
free people under a free electoral process under our constitutional
system ?
Mr. Benz. I think I have answered that question, Senator.
Senator Montoya. No ; you haven't.
Mr. Benz. Do you want me to repeat it ?
Senator Montoya. Yes.
4430
Mr. Benz. I feel if my actions in any way would have cleaned up
the political system, then I think that I have contributed sometliing,
Senator.
Senator Montoya. Wliat makes you think that you would be the
great American vehicle for purity in politics after what you did?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Benz. I don't think I would be a great American vehicle but
if I did play some small role that would help out in that area,
Senator — —
Senator Montoya. Well, do you feel that your role has been small?
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. Do you feel it has been great?
Mr. Benz. No, sir ; I believe it has been small.
Senator Montoya. In what way, now ? Explain yourself.
Mr. Benz. I just do not see the importance of my activities. Senator.
Senator Montoya. Well, just explain how small your role has been
and what you have contributed to purify politics in America.
Mr. Benz. If my actions in any way would cause a deterrent to
actions of this type, then I believe that in a small way it would
contribute.
Senator Montoya. Do you encourage the participation of young peo-
ple in a similar role such as you performed with respect to our election
campaigns in the United States ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir ; I discourage that.
Senator Montoya. Therefore, you are telling me that since you do
not recommend that, it is not a very desirable role for anyone ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Senator Montoya. Let us go into how you hired Miss Patricia
Griffin. Wliere was she from ?
Mr. Benz. Tampa.
Senator Montoya. Was she a lifelong resident of Tampa?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Was she from South Carolina?
Mr. Benz. I believe she was, sir.
Senator Montoya. Did she know Harry Dent?
Mr. Benz. I don't — I never saw — I wouldn't know that, sir.
Senator Montoya. Did she ever speak to you about Harry Dent?
Mr. Benz. Yes ; yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. She did. In what vein ?
Mr. Benz. I believe that she had known him in South Carolina
politics.
Senator Montoya. And did she indicate to you how recently,
after you talked to her for the first time in Tampa, she had seen
Harry Dent?
Mr. Benz. I don't recall today, sir.
Senator Montoya. Wliat conversation did you have with her with
respect to Harrv^ Dent?
]\f r. Benz. I think we have covered pretty much what I recall of the
conversation. Senator.
Senator Montoya. Did you know at the time who Harry Dent was?
Mr. Benz. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. Who was he ?
Mr. Benz. I l^elieve he was a White House counsel.
Senator Montoya. How long- had she been in Tampa at the time
that vou communicated with and hired her?
4431
Mr. Benz [conferring with counsel]. I don't recall, Senator, how
long she had been in Tampa.
Senator Montoya. What particular justification did you present
to her in hiring her and in offering her $75 a month ?
Mr. Benz. It would be on behalf of President Nixon's reelection.
Senator Montoya. Was she working full time at the Muskie head-
quarters ?
Mr. Benz. Not at that time when I approached her.
Senator Montoya. Did she at any time ?
Mr. Benz, Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. And do you know whether or not she was being
paid by anyone else to work in there
Mr, Benz. No, sir.
Senator Montoya [continuing]. And supplementing her income
of $75 a month?
Mr. Benz. All I know of was this $75 a month that I gave her.
Senator Montoya, "WHiat about Miss Eselene Frohlich? "What did
you tell her -by way of justification for hiring her?
Mr. Benz. Probably the same thing, Senator.
Senator Montoya, And how long did she work in the Jackson
campaign ?
Mr. Benz. A few months or so. Senator,
Senator Montoya, She was being paid $50 a month ?
Mr, Benz, That is correct.
Senator Montoya. Was she a vounteer in the Jackson campaign ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct
Senator Montoya. Now, is it your feeling that in view of what you
have done, that you have let go of your dignity and decency as an
individual ?
Mr. Benz. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Have you done anything to restore it since you
performed these acts in the political campaign?
Mr. Benz. I had not known that I lost it, Senator.
Senator Montoya. You feel that you have not ?
Mr. Benz. That is correct.
Senator Montoya. You feel that you have done the proper thing?
Mr. Benz. I felt like I did what I should do.
Senator Montoya, And as you look back in retrospect you still say
that you did the right thing ?
Mr. Benz. Not the right thing. Senator.
Senator Montoya. Or the proper thing?
Mr, Benz, It was not the proper thing, it was a thing that I felt that
I should do.
Senator Montoya, Thank you, Mr, Chairman,
Senator Erven, Senator Weicker,
Senator Weicker, Do you think that Congressman Cramer lost the
1970 election because of Democratic dirty tricks ?
Mr, Benz, No, sir.
Senator Weicker, Do you think he lost the election because of a bad
split in the Kepublican Party in Florida ?
Mr. Benz. That probably contributed to the loss. Senator.
Senator Weicker. WTiat contributed to the loss ?
Mr. Benz. Excuse me?
Senator Weicker. The split in the Republican Party?
4432
Mr. Bexz. I believe that was one of the factors. Senator.
Senator Weicker. Xot Democratic dirty tricks?
Mr. Bexz. I think that there were — I believe the Democratic dirty
tricks was in the area of that split.
Senator AVeicker. You think they were responsible for his loss?
Mr. Bexz. Xot completely. Senator.
Senator Weicker. Well, which is it? You initially said "Xo" and
now you say "not completely."'
Mr. Bexz. I believe that the split between Eepublican politics dur-
ing 1970 was a contributing factor. I also belie\-e that the dirty tricks
was a contributing factor in the split.
Senator Weicker. All right. Let me just ask you one last question.
AVhile you were doing these things which you have testified to, did you
enjoy doing them at that time ?
Mr. Bex'^z. Some of them I did. Some of them I thought were
humorous.
Senator Weicker. Would it be improper for me to suggest then, that
the reason for doing these things was the fact that you eiijoyed doing
them rather than
Mr. Bexz. Xo, sir.
Senator Weicker [continuing]. Than the higher motive than can
relate to the Eepublican Party?
Mr. Bexz. Xo, sir.
Senator Weicker. I still fail to find any reason, based in 1070, on
your actions on the fact situation at that time, to go ahead and have
that as your justification and, very- frankly, I think I know Republi-
cans of iFlorida fairly well, and certainly the Senator who sits with me
on this committee, he certainly does not subscribe to what you throw
out here and I am certain tlie people that I know in Florida would not
either.
I have no further questions, Senator.
Senator Ervix. Senator Baker.
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman. I apologize to you and to the com-
mittee that other Senate business has required me to be in other com-
mittees today. I haven't had a chance to follow the testimony of this
witness, and rather than prolong the proceedings by trying to pick up
the speed on what has already been asked and run the risk of I'epeti-
tion, I will forego my opportunity to question him.
Senator Er\t;x. I have one last question I would like to ask him.
Is it fair to infer from your testimony that you believe that the way
to clean up politics is to make it more filthy ?
Mr. Bexz. Xo, sir. I believe I stated before the way that I felt would
be the proper start. Senator.
Senator Ervix. Well, I just didn't know whether it was fair to infer
that from your testimony or not and I wanted to have your view
whether it was.
I have no further questions.
Do you haA'e an}i:liing further you want to say ?
Mr. Bex'^z. Xo, sir.
Senator Ervix. The committee will stand in recess until Tuesday
morning at 10 o'clock.
[Wliereupon, at 3 :47 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at
10 a.m., Tuesday, October 9, 1973.]
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1973
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
Washington^ B.C.
The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :15 a.m., in room
318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr.,
chairman.
Present : Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker,
Gurney, and Weicker.
Also present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director; Fred
D. Thompson, minority counsel : Rufus L. Eclmisten. deputy chief
counsel; Jed Johnson, investigator; Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief
counsel : Marc Lackritz. Ronald D. Rotunda, and Barry Schochet,
assistant majority counsels; Donald G. Sanders, deputy minority coun-
sel ; Howarcl S. Liebengood. Michael J. Madigan. and Robert Silver-
stein, assistant minority counsels: Pauline O. Dement, research assist-
ant : Eiler Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye : Bruce Jaques. Jr.. office
of Senator Montoya; Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator Baker:
A. Searle Field, assistant to Senator AVeicker: John "Walz. publica-
tions clei'k.
Senator Baker [presiding]. The committee will come to order. The
chairman has been unavoidably detained and will be here shortly.
Senator Inouye asked me to indicate that the Commerce Committee is
in executive session today and that he has the responsibility for a num-
ber of bills that are being considered in that session.
The chairman should be here Avithin the next 1.5 to 30 minutes and
at that time I will have to leave in order to manage amendments to
the strip mine bill on the floor of the Senate. The witness has now
arrived and before we proceed with that. I understand counsel has
an affidavit that he wishes to present for the record at this time.
Afr. Dash. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In accordance with our rule 26 which
reads that any person whose name is mentioned or who is specifically
identified and wlio believes the testimony or other evidence pre-
sented at a public hearing or comment made liy the committee member
or counsel tends to defame or otherwise adversely affect his reputation
may either request to appear personally or file a sworn affidavit of fact
relevant to the testimony, Mr. Mitchell Rogovin. counsel for the In-
stitute of Policv Studies, has under this rule submitted an affida\dt
which I Avould like. Mr. Vice Chairman, to read into the record. It is
an affidavit of Mitchell Rogovin. made in the city of Washington,
District of Columbia.
Mitchell Rogovin, being duly sworn, deposes and says :
1. I am a partner in the law firm of Arnold and Porter. 1229 19th Street.
Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20036. a member of the Bar of the District of
(4433)
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 5
4434
Columbia, and general counsel to the Institute for Policy Studies ("the
Institute").
2. The Institute is a nonprofit District of Columbia corporation which is
exempt from Federal income tax under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 as a charitable and educational organization, and which
is not a "private foundation" under the Code. The Institute engages in research
into public policy matters and is engaged in the training and education of indi-
viduals through its Ph. D. program. The Institute engages in no "political
activities" that are forbidden under the Internal Revenue laws.
3. In testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Cam-
paign Activities on Wednesday, September 26, 1973, Mr. Patrick Buchanan, in
the course of his testimony, made several false allegations concerning the
Institute.
4. In his testimony, Mr. Buchanan stated that the Ford Foundation "provides
funds" for the Institute for Policy Studies, that the Institute was a "beneficiary
of Ford Money," and that the Institute, "of course, is Ford-funded." Mr. Buchanan
sought to leave the impression that the Institute's funding has come primarily
or in large part from the Ford Foundation.
5. In fact, the only funds the Institute has received from the Ford Founda-
tion consisted of a 1-year grant of $7,800 received in 1964 for the specific purpose
of holding seminars on the subject of the Alliance for Progress. This grant was
a very minor source of funding for the Institute.
6. Mr. Buchanan stated that the Institute "holds seminars for Congres.smen,
for staffers, and the like, and they [the Institute] deal in trying to influence
Congressmen and the like to vote in one direction."
'7. In fact, the Institute has held conferences and seminars which have been
attended by, among others. Congressmen and their assistants, but at no time
has the Institute attempted to influence the votes of Congressmen.
8. Mr. Buchanan asserted that the Institute "funded the Quicksilver Times,"
which he de.scribed as a "radical underground newspaper, which has a political
point of view and which is sold for profit." Mr. Buchanan stated further that
since he was familiar with the Quicksilver Times as a "commercial venture, it
would seem to me that this [alleged funding by the Institute] would be an
Illicit use of tax-exempt funds." In the same sentence, Mr. Buchanan imj)lied
that the Institute had used Ford Foundation money to fund the Quicksilver
Times.
9. In fact, the Institute has never funded the Quicksilver Times. To the best of
my knowledge and belief, the Washingtonian magazine article cited by Mr.
Buchanan does not state that the Institute ever funded the Quicksilver Times.
10. The names of the Institute for Policy Studies and its Codirectors. Marcus
Raskin and Richard Barnet, have been mentioned in the course of the hearings
before the Senate Select Committee in connection with the so-called list of
"enemies" of the Administration, against whom certain Administration ofiicials
urged that the resources of various government agencies be applied. In addition,
an exhibit referred to during Air. Ehrlichman's testimony, the Krogh-Young
memo to Ehrlichman of August 11, 1971, indicates that both Raskin and Barnet
were "overheard."
11. The Institute has been the subject of an audit by the Internal Revenue
Service ever since the Nixon administration took oflice. The latest audit began
in January of 1970, apparently as part of the IRS "Special Service Group"
program. The scope and nature of the audit can hardly be described as routine.
12. At present, the Internal Revenue Service, using quite unusual procedures,
has proposed to revoke the Institute's tax exemption. The grounds for revoca-
tion do not include any of the alleged activities mentioned by Mr. Buchanan,
but rather concern charitable and educational activities of the Institute which
are indistinguishable from the activities of other institutions of higher learning
in the United States, but which do involve viewpoints differing sharply from
those of the administration.
13. It appears that the Internal Revenue Service in this case has not followed
Mr. Buchanan's profes.sed belief that educational organizations which study
social issues Init whifh do not engage in political activities should be permitted
to maintain their tax exemption regardless of whether they are considered
"liberal" or "conservative."
14. The Institute has learned from a former FBI informant that the FBI on
several occasions has infiltrated the Institute for Policy Studies with agents
and informants and on at least one occasion joined with a member of the Metro-
politan Police Department in the theft of documents from the Institute.
4435
15. We have also been advised by a former special agent of the FBI that the
FBI has improperly secured the bank records of the Institute without the use
of legal process.
16. The Institute has evidence of illegal surveillance of the Institute by gov-
ernmental agencies by means of wiretapping, electronic surveillance, and breaking
and entering.
17. Represeut^itives of the Institute will be able to supply you with further
details of these activities. Signed Mitchell Rogovin, subscribed and sworn to
before me this 3d day of October, 1973 ; Lois M. Clementz, Notary Public.
Senator Baker. The affidavit will be received as a part of the record
under rule 6 of the committee's standing rules. The Chair would in-
dicate that since the affidavit as in the case of all affidavits is not sub-
ject to cross-examination and since from the reading of it, it would
appear that some information is based on other sources, if any member
of the committee desires other information or to proceed with the
matter further, of course, imder the standing rules of the committee
we would pursue that in whatever manner seemed appropriate. If
there is no objection then the affidavit, as read, will be made part of
the record.
Our fii'st witness this morning has arrived and if he Avould hold up
his right hand I will administer the oath before we proceed with
the matter of immunity order.
Would you please state your name ?
Mr. Buckley. John R. Buckley.
Senator Baker. Mr. Buckley, do you solemnly SAvear that the tes-
timony you are about to give before this committee will be the truth,
the Avhole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
^Mr. Buckley. I do.
Senator Baker. You may be seated.
Mr. Buckley, we have before us a certified copy of an order over
the signature of Judge John J. Sirica, chief judge of the I^.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia filed October 9, 1978, and bear-
ing docket number miscellaneous 70-7-3 entitled "In the Matter of
the Ap])lication of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Presidential
Campaign Activities."
This oi'der confers use immunity on the application of this com-
mittee under the I'elevant sections of the United States Code, particu-
lai-ly title 18. sections 6002 and 0005, and the mandate of the order is
that you, the witness, in accordance with those provisions shall not
be excused from testifying or providing other information before the
committee on the ground that the testimony or other information
sought may tend to incriminate you.
If there is no objection on the part of the committee the order of
immunity will be incorporated in the record as part of our official
proceeding.
Mr. Witness, do you understand the nature and intendment of
that order?
Mr. Buckley. I do.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN R. BUCKLEY, ACCOMPANIED BY
KENNETH D. WOOD, COUNSEL
Senator Baker. Very Avell, would counsel then proceed with the
examination of the witness ?
Mr. Dash. Yes, Senator Baker.
4436
Mr. Rufiis Edmisteii, deputy cliief coimsol, will initially question
the witness.
Mr. Ed:mistex. Mr. Buckley, for the record, please state your name
and address.
Mr. Buckley. John K. Buckley, 13410 Grenol)le Drive, Rockville,
Md.
Mr, Edmisten. You are represented by counsel. "Would counsel iden-
tify himself?
]\Ir. Wood. ]\Iy name is Kenneth T). Wood, and I am a member of
the District of Columbia Bar.
Mr. Edmisten. INIr. Buckley, what is your present employment
status ?
Mr. Buckley. I am retired.
Mr. Edmistex. When did you first beofin Government service?
Mr. Buckley. I had Go\ermnent service in the Xavy during- World
War 11.
Mr. Edmisten. What agency did you first work for in the Federal
Government ?
Mr. Buckley. The FBI.
Mr. Ediviisten. When did you retire ?
Mr. Buckley. In 19 — this year, June 80.
Mr. Edmisten. Then you were employed where ?
Mr. Buckley. After I retired ?
Mr. Edmisten. After retirement from the FBI ?
Mr. Buckley. I have no employment at the present time. I have
Mr. Edmisten. No ; after you retired from the FBI ?
Mr. Buckley. I resigned from the FBI in 1964.
Mr. Edmisten. And then you were employed where?
Mr. Buckley. For a period of about a year I was self-employed in
the District of Columbia.
Mr. Edmisten. Then you were employed where after that?
INIr. BucKi>EY. After that I was employed by the House Education
and Labor Committee, House of Representatives.
Mr. Edmisten. In what capacity there, what were your functions,
your duties?
Mr. Buckley. I was chief investigator for the minority of that
committee, and had duties as counsel on poverty matters.
Mr. Edmisten. Xow, when you left the House conunittee in 1969,Mr.
Buckley, where were you employed then?
IVIr. Buckley. I then went to the Office of Economic Opportunity as
the director of the inspection division.
Mr. Edmisten. How did you obtain your job there?
Mr. Buckley. It was an appointment l)y the director, then Donald
Rumsfeld.
Mr. Edmisten. Had he known you before ?
Mr. Buckley. He had known me by virtue of two or three contacts
in the House of Representatives.
Mr. Edmisten. Now, what were your duties at OEO ?
Mr. Buckley. I supervised a squad of 80 to 50 inspectors and sup-
porting staff in inspections and investigations of irregularities and
noncompliance of OEO guidelines, in grantee contract programs.
Mr. Edmisten. And that, then, involved a good deal of investigative
work and I am sure you drew upon your former work as an investiga-
tor there.
4437
Mr. Buckley. Yes.
Mr. Edmisten. Is that correct ?
Mr. Buckley. Tliat is correct.
Mr. Edmisten. Now that certainly could be called a full-time job,
could it not, Mr. Buckley ?
Mr. Buckley, Yes, sir.
Mr. Edmisten. When did you leave the OEO ?
Mr. Buckley. June 80, 1973.
Mr. Edmisten. What was your reason for leaving?
Mr. Buckley, I was retired.
Mr. Edmisten. Xow, Mr. Buckley, during the years between your
retirement from the FBI and your employment by the OEO, I think
the recoi'd sliows — at least your interview shows that you worked for
several political campaigns. One of them, I believe, was Mr. Cecil
Underwood's campaign in Wiji for Governor of West Virginia.
Mr. Buckley. That is right.
Mr. Edmisten. What did you do in that campaign?
Mr, Bi'CKLEY, I was involved in investigating situations in West
Virginia for the Republican candidate for governor.
Mr. Edmisten. I think we noted that you also worked for a guber-
natorial campaign in North Carolina, Mr. Jim Gardner.
Mr. Buckley. I did.
Mr. Edmisten. What did you do for Mr. Gardner?
Mr. Buckley. In 1968, on September 2 and very previous occasions,
I investigated allegations that Mr. Gardner was concerned about.
Mr. Edmisten. Did Mr. Gardner ask you to go to North Carolina?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edmisten. Were you employed at that time by the House com-
mittee?
Mr, Buckley. I was.
Mr. Edmisten. I take it this was on your own time ?
Mr. Buckley. It was. It involved 2 weekends, with probably a
Friday or a Monday connected with each.
Mr. Edmisten. Did you investigate in North Carolina ?
Mr. Buckley. I investigated, and documented a situation in a State
institution for juveniles involving a rape of one of the inmates by the
counselors in the institution.
Mr. Edmisten. When did you do another investigation ?
Mr. Buckley. Subsequently, after the election, we examined voting
registrations and voting in tlie Durham, N.C., area.
Mr. Edmisten. And Mr. Buckley, during the course of your employ-
ment witli tlie House committee, did you meet a man named Kenneth
Rietz ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. Edmisten. What was your association with Mr. Rietz at that
time ?
Mr, Buckley, I first met Ken Rietz in probably January of 1967
and he at that time was an aide to a Congressman who was on the Ed-
ucation and Labor Committee and had an office directly near mine.
Mr. Ed:misten. "\^^iat was the basis of your continued i-elationship
with Mr. Rietz during the House — did you see him often ? Were you
well acquainted with him ? Was he a friend or wdiat ?
Mr. Buckley. In connection with committee business, I would have
occasion to see Mr. Rietz and his Congressman several times during the
4438
session in consideration of manpower and poverty bills, bills nnder
the jurisdiction of the House Education and Labor Comniittee.
^iv. Edmistex. Now. did you receive a call from Mr. Ken Rietz in
late J\i\y or early Anj^ust of 1971 ?
Mr. l^ucKLEY. Yes, sir.
yiv. Edmistkx. AYhy did he call you ?
Mr. Buckley. He called me to extend an invitation to go to lunch.
]\Iv. Edmistex. Did you <ro to hnich ?
]Mr. Buckley. Yes, we did.
Mr. Edmistex". You had a discussion with him. What did he ask
of you or tell you at that luncheon ?
]\rr. Buckley. He indicated at that time that he was in charj^e of
youth activity, the youth vote, for the Committee To Re-Elect the
President and in addition to that, he had a responsibility to determine,
as far as lie could, the location and cjenoral activities of Senator Mus-
kie's cam]>aio;u headquarters.
Mr. EoMiSTEX'. Xow. ]Mr. Buckley, you just mentioned that ^Ir.
Rietz had known you in the House. Why you, of all people, would Mr.
Rietz call you ancl ask you to help formulate a plan, knowing full well
that you were employed at OEO. Wliat basis did he have to call you
and ask for your assistance ^
^Ir. Buckley. T cannot speak for Mr. Rietz. but I Avould assume that
he was familiar with my background as an investigator and that we
had at one time or another a discussion of political campaigns or polit-
ical investigations.
Mr. En:\risTEX'. You said that ^[r. Rietz asked you to come up with
some proposals or a plan. Did you come up with a plan ?
^Ir. Buckley. He asked me if I Avould help him ascertain where the
Muskie headquarters were, who the volunteers, what the staff was, who
comprised the statf , and generally what the candidates itinerary would
be in the ensuing months.
Mr. Edmistex'. Did you formulate a plan to help him do that ?
^Ir. Buckley. Xot at that time. T suggested that there were many
standard ways that one gets a volunteer into an opponent's campaign
and suggested that a clerk or a stenographer or a member of the press
or one posing as a member of the press would very easily ascertain
the things that he ^yas interested in, most of which T considered to be
public information.
Mr. En^riSTEx-. But did Mr. Rietz think those proposals were good
plans, without planting a press person or campaign aide ?
^Ir. Buckley. I do not believe at that point that anything specific
was suggested. He indicated that something of that nature might be
satisfactory.
^Ir. Edmtstex. Did von finally come up with a definite plan for
Mr. Rietz?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, I did.
Mr. Edmistex'. What was that plan?
'Sir. Buckley. Subsequent to that meeting, there appeai-ed in a local
newspaper a column indicating that Senator Humphrey had had two
taxicab rides on a particular day and neither of the cab drivei-s would
accept a fare from him. That appears, if I may, in the September 27
issue of the Wasliington Star.
Mr. Edmistex. 1971 ?
4439
Mr. Buckley. 1971.
Mr. Edmistex. Written by Mr. Morris Siegel ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes. sir.
Mr. Edmistex. Mr. Chairman, the A^itness has identified the docu-
ment. I would like to have it included in the record.
Senator Ekvix [presiding]. "Without objection, the article will be
received as an exhibit and appropriately numbered as such.
[The article referred to was marked exhibit Xo. 227.*]
Mr. Edmistex. I will read this article. It says :
On the other hand, Hubert H. Humphrey, who, incidentally, didn't make it
working with Bob Short either, apparently doesn't miss anything that went with
being Xo. 2 except his chauffeur-driven car, if he misses that. He cabbed it over
to a luncheon with editors the other day and once the hack driver discovered who
his distinguished pa.«senger was he wouldn't accept any money for the fare. "No
way, Senator. I'm gonna take any money from you. You ought to be President,"
he said proudly when Humphrey offered him money. On the return trip to Capitol
Hill. Humphrey got into another cab and it was the same story all over again.
Now. if somebody will come along and offer Humphrey an airplane ride in a rea-
sonable facsimile of Air Force One, he might not even miss being President.
Is that what prompted you to come up with your plan ?
Mr. Buckley. That suggCvSted something to me.
Mr. En^nsTEX. All right. Xow. did Mr. Rietz approve of that plan ?
Mr. Buckley. Well. I had not drawn the plan for him- at that time.
I had been acquainted for years with a semiretired cabdriver who
was interested in some kind of employment that would give liim a
weekly wage and I discussed with him the possibility of his volunteer-
ing in the campaign committee of Senator Muskie and he suggested
that he would, and Rietz approved the plan suV>sequently.
Mr. Eo^nsTEX. Who was this calxiriver? IdentifA' him. please. Wliat
Avas his name ?
Mr. Buckley. May I speak with counsel, please? [Conferring with
counsel.]
Mr. Chairman, we have identified the name of this cabdriver on
at least two or three occasions to the members of your staff. Would the
committee consider witliliolding his name from public identification
at this point?
Mr. En^nsTEX. It is rather general knowledge. Mr. Chairman. I
think it has been printed in several papers.
Senator ER^^x. Well. I think the committee would be disinclined
to suppress any truth at all in this investigation, even if the truth
might prove embarrassing to somebody.
Mr. Buckley. I mention that Ijecause this man is of advanced age.
He has been ill and that is the reason that I request it.
Senator ER^^x. Well. I s^-mpathize with him. but I do not know
any reason why the conunittee should suppress the truth.
Mr. Edmistex. Would vou identify- the cabdriver's name. Air
Buckley?
Mr. Buckley. His name is Elmer Wyatt.
^^^^- Ed:mtstex. How did you become acquainted with Mr. Elmer
\\ yatt?
'Sir. Buckley. I had known hirn for a prior .> or 6 vears. havino- seen
him on some occasions, having used his cab on other occasions for
transportation in the District.
•Seep. 4697.
4440
Mr. Edmisten. Was ISIr. Wyatt anxious to help you carry out your
plan ?
Mr. Buckley. He was willing.
Mr. Edmisten. Have you ever done any investigative work using
Mr. Wyatt before, Mr. Buckley ?
Mr. Buckley. I hadn't done any investigative w^ork using him as
an aide ; no, I had not.
Mr. Edmisten. All right. You contacted Mr. Wyatt and you told him
the plan and you had approval from Mr. Ken Rietz ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes; I did.
Mr. Edmisten. Now, what were the terms agreed upon, the amount
of payment? What did you tell Mr. Wyatt you would pay him?
Mr. Buckley. If I may, at the initial meeting with Mr. Rietz, we dis-
cussed if a full-time volunteer was to be utilized for the purposes of
reporting back to us that we would certainly expect to pay them a
weekly salary, I estimated that to get any of the people that occurred
to me on the first meeting, it would take between $150 and $200 a
week. At that time, he wondered if $1,000 a month would cover the
whole thing and I expressed my thought that it would.
Mr. Edmisten. All right, so you were given assurances by Mr.
Ken Rietz, of the Commitee To Re-Elect the President that you
would get $1,000 a month to take care of the program?
Mr. Buckley. Yes; providing it was successful and providing it
could be continued or was feasible.
Mr. Edmisten. Now, how did Mr. Wyatt work himself into the
Muskie organization? Did he just walk in the door or what?
Mr. Buckley. He walked into the Muskie campaign headquarters
with the newspaper article and suggested to the person in charge of
volunteers there that if cabdrivers could do it for Senator Humphrey,
he would be willing to spend some time each day running errands' for
the Muskie campaign people.
Mr. Edmisten. Was he successful ? Was he accepted as a volunteer
for the organization ?
Mr. Buckley. He was.
Mr. Edmisten. Now, shortly after he began working with the Muskie
organization, what was he doing? What job did he get?
Mr. Buckley. He did a number of things, from what he told me.
He took clothes to the cleaners and he took packages to the stationery
store and things of that nature. But one assignment that was to become
more or less regularly his was to carry messages from the Muskie
campaign headquarters to the Senator's office on Capitol Hill.
Mr. Edmisten. So he would gather up, you say messages. I suppose
that includes documents, letters, press releases, things of that nature,
and place them in some container and carry them from Muskie's
headquarters here to the Senate ?
Mr. Buckley. That is generally accurate.
Mr. EnivnsTEN. Did you make an arrangement with him that he
would call you after receiving the Muskie documents down there
and let you look at them ?
Mr. Buckley. This, of course, took several weeks, probably 2 or
3 weeks, to begin this. An arrangement was made whereby he would
call me when he was leaving the campaign headquarters and tell me
that he was en route with a box of memorandums. Now, this would
4441
require several things. It would require, No. 1, that he went in that
day. It would require that there was not someone accompanying
him, as frequently happened; that it not be raining, because the
papers then would be wet; and that I be available. I frequently was
not available when he called, and other times, would be involved in
agency business and could not meet him.
Mr. Edmisten. So Mr. Wyatt would call you when you were avail-
able. Would he tell you to meet him somewhere ?
Mr. Buckley. Meet him on the corner, on a nearby corner.
Mr. Edmisten. What would you do ?
Mr. Buckley. I would proceed to meet him at 19th and L or 20th
andM.
Mr. Edmisten. And then you proceeded to do what ?
Mr. Buckley. Then we would drive for a couple of blocks and I
proceeded to look at the memorandums that were in the box.
Mr. Edmisten. All right. After you looked at the memorandums
and you determined that you might want some of them what did
you do then ?
Mr. Buckley. I tried unsuccessfully for one or two of these meet-
ings to photograph itineraries ftnd memorandums that were in the
box. It was not a successful effort. The light was inappropriate, my
equipment was not suitable.
Mr. Edmisten. Where were you attempting to do this photograph-
ing, in the car ?
Mr. Buckley. In the back seat of the taxi.
Mr. Edmisten. Well, that was rather awkward, was it not?
Mr. Buckley. I don't understand. Awkward in what way ?
Mr. Edmisten. Awkward to get the job done.
Mr. Buckley. It certainly was not suitable. It didn't get the job
done.
Mr. Edmisten. Mr. Buckley, at any time, did you have to open any
envelopes to procure the documents that you wanted ?
Mr. Buckley. No sir. One of the rules that we had from the time
we started, and one of the rules that I made clear to Rietz and the
cabdriver, was that at no time would any mail or any envelopes be
delayed or be handled or be tampered with in any fashion. And
they weren't.
Mr. Edmisten. You just described having difficulty making photo-
graphs of the materials in the back of the car and different places.
What did you do to try to improve your operation?
Mr. Buckley. Subsequently, I rented an office which was located
near the Muskie campaign committee and at about the same time, I
purchased some new equipment and some lights which would be more
effective in document copying.
Mr. Edmisten. Where was this office ?
Mr. Buckley. It was at 1026 I7th Street, NW.
Mr. Edmisten. From whom did you rent that office ?
Mr. Buckley. I rented that from the managing company that was
on the ground floor.
Mr. Edmisten. Did they ask you what you wanted it for?
Mr. Buckley, No, I rented it in my own name as an attorney.
INIr. Edmisten. OK. Now, we have some equipment over here that
we would like to show you. If you could describe to the committee how
your operation went, it would be helpful.
4442
Mr. Buckley, did you purchase this equipment from a commercial
camera shop ?
]\Ir. Buckley. Yes, I did.
Mr. Edmisten. Which camera shop ?
Mr. Buckley. I purchased it at the Penn Camera Shop on 10th
Street, I believe, 10th or 11th.
Mr. Edmisten. Do you have an invoice copy dated October 22, 1971 ?
Mr. Buckley. We do.
Mr. Edmistex. Do you ao:ree that this is an invoice copy describing
that equipment ?
Mr. Buckley. I agree that it is.
Mr. Edmistex. !Mr. Chairman, could we have this placed in the
record, since the witness has identified it ?
Senator Ervix. If there is no objection, the document will be re-
ceived in evidence as an exhibit and appropriately marked as such.
[The document referred to was marked exhibit Xo. 228.*]
Mr. Edmistex. What is the total price, by the way, of the equip-
ment vou purchased at Penn Central ?
Mr." Buckley. $41 3.70.
Mr. Edmistex. Does that include all the equipment there ?
Mr. Buckley. That is on the sheet '^
Mr, Edmistex. Yes.
Mr. Buckley. No ; there are a couple of pieces that aren't on here.
These are not on here. This is an enlarge r, and this is a developing
ta]ik. They are not on the list.
The list includes a stand and a camera and some film.
Mr. Edmisten. Where did you get the money to purchase that
equipment ?
INIr. Buckley. I used some money that was given to me by Rietz on
a monthly basis to purchase this.
Mr. Edmistex. All right, describe your operation for us. Mr. Wyatt
would brinir in the material and vou would rush up to the room, I
take it? ■
]Mr. Buckley. He would bring in the material in a box that looked
to me like it was a stationery — an empty stationery box ; the mate-
rial was o]:)en in this fashion, was stacked in the box, thrown into the
box, like this. The stationery box might include ])ress releases, itiner-
ary, internal memorandums, or perhaps drafts for speeches, maybe,
or position drafts,
INIr. Ediniistex. Well, I suppose at times, there were letters typed up
for Senator Muskie's signature which were not enclosed in an en-
velope and you thereby could make photographs of that particular
letter?
iVfr. Buckley. There could have been, I would have thought that
they were in draft form, too. There were no letters that were signed
or stamped or anything of that nature.
Mr. Ed^iistex. Did yon run across a list of conti'ibutors at times?
Mr. Buckley. No ; I d' /u't recall that T did.
Mr. Edmistex. Did you ever run across a list of people who visited
the INIuskie headquarters?
^Ir. Buckley. No, sir.
Mr. Ediniistex. After you would receive the box of material and
you would go through it and determine what was relevant to your
purposes, how did you use that machine ?
*See p. 4698.
4443
Mr. Buckley. There would be times when there was nothing rele-
vant in the box and we wouldn't take any pictures.
This is a camera, of course, this is a copy stand. These lights light
up the base of it. A document in this fasliion would be photographed
thusly [indicating].
Mr. Edmistex. All right. After taking the film, would you develop
it yourself i?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, I would.
Mr. EoansTEN. Where?
JSIr. Buckley. I woidd develop it at hoane.
Mr. Edmisten. Now, once the film was developed, what did you do
with it?
Mr. Buckley. Once the film was developed, I would deliver it to
Ken Eietz and subsequently to another individual.
Mr. Edmistex. Now, how did you arrange to meet Mr. Rietz and
where did you meet him?
Mr. Buckley. I would call Rietz every 9 or 10 days, when I had a
roll of film or two rolls of film, and I would tell him that I had some
film for him and Avould deliver it to him at a comer near the Committee
To Re-Elect the President.
Mr. Edmtstex. Do you recall what that corner was ?
Mr. Buckley. It was different corners. It was 17th and Pennsylvania,
18tli and Pennsylvania.
Mr. Edmistex. In turn, did Mr. Rietz turn over money to you for
your services when you would deliver the film to him ?
Mr. Buckley. Once a month.
Mr. Edmistex. Did he ever discuss with von what he was going to
do Avitli that film ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir, he did not.
Mr. Edmistex. Do you have any idea what he was doing with it?
Mr. Buckley. I do not. He mentioned on one occasion early that
there was someone assigned to analyze the material, and I do not
know who that someone was.
Mr. Edmistex. Finally, did Mr. Rietz start appearing late and seem
somewhat uninterested in your material?
]\Ir. Buckley. Almost from the first. He was late, there were occa-
sions he did not come, to the point that I discussed it with him and told
him that if he couldn't be punctual, I wasn't going to continue with it.
Mr. Ed:mistex. All right, vou gave him an ultimatum, if he did
not show up he was going to have to get somebody else, is that right?
ISIr. Buckley. That is right.
Mr. Edmistex. W1\o did show up ?
Mr. Buckley. He indicated shortly after that that there would be
someone else who would be contacting me. that the someone else was
a man by the name of Ed "Warren, and that the first meeting he would
meet me in front of the Roger Smith Hotel at ISth and Pennsylvania
Avenue.
Mr. Edmistex. Did you meet with Mr. Ed Warren?
IVIr. Buckley. I did.
Mr. Ed:mistex. Did you have anv idea who he was ?
Mr. Buckley. I did not at the time. I subsequently recognized, after
the Watergate arrests and pictures of Howard Hunt were in the paper
that he was the individual that I had been meeting with during the
months in 1972.
4444
Mr. Edmisten. How many times do you figure you met with Mr. Ed
Warren ?
Mr. Buckley. I would estimate twice or three times a month for
about 4 months.
Mr. Edmisten. How did you identify yourself to Mr. Ed Warren?
Mr. Buckley. I identified myself to him under an assumed name, I
used the name Jack Kent.
Mr. Edmisten. Jack Kent ?
Mr. Buckley. K-e-n-t.
Mr. Edmisten. Mr. Hunt was on the witness stand the other day
and he referred to you as "Fat Jack." How did that come about?
Mr. Buckley. I have no idea. I never heard that name until a month
or 6 weeks ago, until Mr. Rietz in a conversation told me that they re-
ferred to me, they, meaning Hunt, I suppose, and others as Fat Jack,
that was the first time I heard of it.
Mr. Edmisten. So your assumed name was Jack Kent?
Mr. Buckley. That is right.
Mr. Edmisten. Why did you pick that name?
Mr. Buckley. I can only guess that Kent cigarettes suggested it to
me. I had no reason to select it.
Mr. Edmisten. Describe your meetings with Mr. Warren. Did you
talk a good deal with him or what transpired? Did you just take him
the film and walk away or not ?
Mr. Buckley. No; they were very formal or very short. I do not
think he trusted me completely and I did not trust him. It was merely
a matter of delivering the envelope and setting the day. No coffee, no
conversation of any length at all.
Mr. Edmisten. It might be described then as a meeting of two spies
who did not really trust one another ?
Mr. Buckley. I suspect so.
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, could we move that material, I mean,
it is impressive equipment, I am sure, but I cannot see the witness.
Mr. Dash. We are through with it.
Mr. Edmisten. Now, Mr. Buckley, after you had met with Mr. Ken
Rietz for a while, you met with Mr. Warren for a while. When did
the project finally terminate, and what caused it to terminate?
Mr. Buckley. The project terminated when Senator Muskie an-
nounced his withdrawal from the race — ^the nomination — and to the
best of my recollection, it was in April of 1972, and it had for previous
weeks sort of dwindled, our activity and his interest decreased as the
position of Senator Muskie became worse or it became more apparent
that he would not be the successful nominee.
Mr. Edmisten. How were you notified that you were to cease your
operations ?
Mr. Buckley. We had discussed it as the primaries developed and
indicated that we would terminate if Senator Muskie withdrew.
Mr. Edmisten. After Senator Muskie fell in the polls, were you
asked to infiltrate the McGovern campaign in the same manner?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir, I was not.
Mr. Edmisten. All right. Thereafter, Mr. Buckley, did you per-
form any other services for the Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir.
Mr. Edmisten. Have you since that time ?
4445
Mr. Buckley. I do not think so.
Mr. P]dmistex. "What did Mr. Wyatt, the cabdriver, do following
his termination ?
Mr. Buckley. He was not active in that any longer. I assumed that
he resumed his taxi business.
Mr. Edmisten. Have you talked to him since that time?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, I have.
Mr. Edmisten. Do you know that Mr. Wyatt had an interview with
the staff of the committee ?
Mr. Buckley. I knew that — I became aware that the staff of the
committee interviewed him early this summer. I did not become aware
of it until after he had been interviewed, and he did call me that night
and told me that he had been subpenaed and that he had talked to a
staff member and that he denied any involvement in any of this
activity.
Mr. Edmisten. Did he tell you though, later that he did come back
and substantiate everything you said ?
Mr. Buckley. He told me before he came back later that he was
asked to come back.
Mr. Edmisten. Now, Mr. Buckley, when you were working at the
OEO you had a rather high position down there. Did anyone at the
OEO know about any of your activities at any time regarding this?
Mr. Buckley. I do not think so. I am quite sure they did not.
Mr. Edmisten. Did they discover after the activity had occurred
and was maybe brought to their attention ?
Mr. Buckley. I do not think so, probably in the light of the recent
publicity.
Mr. Edmisten. You said you retired yourself, so this activity had
nothing to do with your leaving OEO ?
Mr. Blxkley. No, sir.
Mr. Edmisten. How was it possible for you to be absent on those
occasions from your office without some word of explanation?
Mr. Buckley. The meetings involved — at the most about 35 to
40 minutes. We had a rule we would not be together for more than 15
minutes, the location was 6 or 7 minutes from my office building and
it coincided with the lunch hour. It happened usually and most always
between 11 and 12 o'clock.
Mr. Edmisten. Now the calls that you had received from Mr. Wyatt
and from Mr, Rietz, did they cause anybody any concern at your
office?
INIr. Buckley. I have never heard anyone express concern.
Rietz' calls would be very infrequent. The Wyatt calls would, I am
sure, happen a couple of times a week.
Mr. Edmisten. I believe you indicated in your interview with the
staff, Mr. Buckley, you were given around $8,000 for this operation ?
IMr. Buckley. I base that on my recollection that we were involved
about 7 or 8 months. If it was 7 months it would be $7,000, if it were
8 months it would be $8,000.
Mr. Edmisten. Wliy don't you break that down to the committee ?
What happened to that money ?
Mr. Buckley. The money substantially went to the cabdriver. He
received what money was not spent on equipment and film and ex-
penses of that kind. In the early weeks, in light of the equipment pur-
4446
chases, he was given $150 a week. [Conferring with counsel.] And I
when the equipment had been purchased he was then given $175 a week, i
and the rental of the office space was $100 a month.
Mr. Edmisten. All right. So you are testifying that you did not
benefit one iota from any of this activity ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir, not any money to me. It is my recollection
there were times when I spent some of mj^ money in the operation.
Mr. Edmisten. Now, Mr. Buckley, let us go back to these boxes
that you received from Mr. Elmer Wyatt. I know it is hard to recon-
struct the details when you see lots of materials, but try to remember
some of the documents you saw. You saw press releases, you saw
itineraries ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes.
Mr. Edmisiien. You saw drafts of letters, well, documents that could
have been letters?
Mr. Buckley. They were not signed, they were not stamped.
Mr. Edmisten. Well, it could have been a draft, a letter prepared,
waiting for Senator Muskie's signature ?
Mr. Buckley. It is possible. My recollection is that they were
rough draft letters.
Mr. Edmisten. Did you see letters coming to Senator Muskie from
contributors ?
Mr. Buckley. No ; I did not. My recollection is that I did not.
Mr. Edmisten. Did you see drafts of speeches ?
Mr. Buckley. There were drafts and very conceivably cmild be
speeches or releases or position papers.
Mr. Edmisten. Well, you read them, didn't you? That was your
purpose ?
Mr. Buckley. I glanced through them, I did not evaluate or analyze
them.
Mr. Edmisten. How did you know what you were giving them if
you didn't read this material ?
Mr. Buckley. I did say I glanced tlirough them. If it pertained
to an itinerary of the candidates or if it pertained to a press release
on a particular topic, if it pertained to his position on an issue — what
could be considered an issue, it was relevant, it was something that I
would be interested in. If it did not, I would not photograph it.
Mr. Edmisten. So that was your criteria ?
Mr, Buckley. Essentially.
Mr. Edmisten. In other words, you had to read every document
that was in the box to determine which ones you were going to choose ?
Mr. Buckley. I would not be argumentative with you. I did not
read it all. It would take only a glance to determine that some of them
would not fit into that category, any of those categories. I didn't have
time to read a lengthy document. If it had a caption and it started
out dealing with his itinerary it was something I was interested in. I
would not have to read it all,
Mr. Edmisten. Have you come upon any evidence that any of your
material ever appeared in any newspapers, the material that vou col-
lected ?
Mr. Buckley. The only situation that I can respond to that is,
it has been publicized that a Senator Muskie memo was forwarded to
Evans and Novak and later put in their column. I do not recall see-
4447
ing that memo but I do recall one instance in late 1971 that the cab-
driver indicated to me that the people at the ]Muskie campaign head-
quarters were very much concerned and excited that an internal
memo had been published in the paper. I feel that that probably was
the memo but I don't recall photographing it. I conveyed my con-
cern then to Rietz, indicating that it was not our purpose to be fur-
nishing any internal memorandums of Senator JNIuskie to the news-
papers or anybody else and if they were doing that with it that we
would discontinue also. I felt 'it was an intelligence-gathering
operation.
Mr. Edmisten. Well now, did you ever recall looking at any kind
of a paper prepared by Senator Muskie relating to the nomination of
Mr. William Rehnquist ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir, I recall that draft and it was a draft, it was
double spaced.
Mr. Edmisten. You photographed it?
Mr. Buckley. I photographed it.
Mr. Edmisten. Now, Mr. Buckley, you are a very experienced man,
you have worked for the Government a long time, and I am sure you
are very familiar with the Hatch Act. are you not ?
Mr. Buckley. I am somewhat familiar with it.
Mr. Edmisten. Did you read the Hatch Act before engaging in that
activity ?
Mr. Buckley. I have read the Hatch Act and I read it about that
time. It was my feeling that tlie Hatch Act, which spells out activities
which are prohibited and spells out activities that are permitted, was
silent in this area. I didn't feel that the Hatch Act applied.
Mr. Edmisten. You know the Hatch Act reads that :
It shall be unlawful for any person employed in any administrative position
by the United States or by any Department, independent agency or other agency
of the United States — ■
And I will leave out the reference to a corporation —
to use his official authority for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the
election or nomination of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President,
and Presidential elector.
I emphasize the word "affecting."
Mr. Buckley. Affected or interfered with ? Whatever interpretation
is placed on that I didn't feel that it applied to me. I could not see
that I was interfering with the election or the nomination of Senator
Muskie.
Mr. Edmisten. If you had to look back over your acti\nties, Mr.
Buckley, do you think your activities were a waste of time? Did they
do any good?
Mr. Buckley. I didn't hear the last of your question.
Mr. Edmisten. Did your activities reap any benefits for the purpose
for which you began your activities, that is, not to affect the campaign
of Muskie?
Mr. Buckley. Not as far as I am concerned in light of Senator
Muskie's not getting the nomination. Had he been successful in getting
the nomination, I would not have felt the time was wasted.
Mr. Edmisten. Well, what was your original purpose for engaging
in that activity ? Was it to affect the campaign of Senator Muskie ?
Mr. Buckley. Was it to affect his campaign ?
4448
Mr. Edimtsten-. Yes.
Mr. Buckley. I didn't feel tliat. My purpose was to <rf^thei' for
Rietz and wlioever else was interested in information coneernino- Sen-
ator INInskie's itinerary; what his position was on issues of the day
and that type of thine:.
Mr. Edmtsti^n. "Well, ha^-e yon lieard any woi-d about whether or
not you were in some way helpful to ihe Committee To "Re-Elect the
President?
Mr. BiTCKT.EY. No, 1 haven't.
Mr. Ed:mtstex. Do yon think it was?
Mr. Buckley. Successfid in the 1072 election? T don't feel that it
was helpful to the election of the lvei)ublican candidate.
Mr. EoMTSTEN. T just sit here and wonder why you took the job.
Mr. Buckley. T^Hiy T took the job ?
Mr. En^riSTETsr. Yes.
Mr. Bttkley. That never occurred to me not to.
Mr. Edmistex. Well, would you do it acffiin ?
Mr. Buckley. T wouldn't do it for a while. T don't think. [Lauirhter.]
Senator Emax. T am si'oinjT to have to ask the audience to refrain
from demonstr-atino- in any way their reaction to anythinc: which oc-
curs in the hearino- r-oom. And I solicit their cooperation in this
request.
Mr. ED:\risTEX. T have one final question. Did you think you were
helpinir the Comniittee To "Re-Elect the President ?
Mr. Bi'CKLKV. T suppose T did. T felt that T was furnishino- a service
to them that they needed, otherwise they wouldn't have asked me
to. That didn't seem possible that thev didn't know where Senator
Muskie's headquarters were because T found that, T think in 60 sec-
onds. But that was their request.
Mr. En:srLSTEx. Thank you. INfr. Buckley.
T have no f m'ther questions. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ekvtn. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Tiio:srpsox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Buckley, did you have contacts with anyone else at the Com-
mittee To Be-Elect except ]\[r. Rietz concernin<r your hirino- of the
cabdriver ?
INfr. Buckley. Pietz and Howard PTunt.
Mr. TiroMPSox. Did you ever discuss the matter with Bart Poi-ter?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir. T do not know the man.
Mr. Tiio:\rrsox. Did you ever discuss the matter with Jeb ]\rai>-rudei'?
Mr. Bi'CKLEY. No, sir.
Mr. TiioMPSOx. I believe you indicated that when ^Nfi-. Rietz fii-st
talked to you, he said that he had been o;iven an assi^ment.
Did he say who had o-iven him that assijrnment ?
Mr. BucKi>EY. No; he did not. He indicated that it was an a<lditional
responsibility of his.
INfr. TiioTsrpsox. Did he ever tell you who was fui'uisliinii' the money
for the assignment?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir.
Mr. Trro:\rpsox. Did you have any independent knowledae as to
who was f urnishinir the money for the assignment ?
INfi'. Bt^ckley. T did not.
Mr. Tiro:\rpsox. You have indicated some types of material that you
viewed and photoffraphed.
4449
Was any of this material that was public matei-ial, that someone
could oo to the headquarters and obtain ?
Mr. Buckley. The press releases and the itineraries were — the itin-
eraries frecpientlj^ were published in press release form.
Mr. TiiOMrsox. Why was it necessary to oo through these gyrations
then to obtain it? Were you getting it earlier than you otherwise could
have gotten it ?
Mr7 Buckley. I think so. Some of the press releases might be a day
earlier.
Mr. Thompson. The internal documents then I assume would not
have been public knowledge at any time ?
Mr. Buckley. I wouldn't think so.
Mr. Thompson. What I am interested in is, how you analyzed it
yourself, having worked in political campaigns, what type of ma-
terial would a campaign organization turn over to some person who
just walked off the street and said he wanted to help as evidently this
cabdriver did ^ Were you surprised at the confidentiality of any of
the documents that you saw or were they things that were highly
confidential ?
Mr. Buckley. Some of it, they were not classified, of course, but a
memo like the critical memo of, concerning the Eehnquist prospective
appointment I thought was a sensitive document and was surprised
to see it there. INIuch of the material was not.
Mr. Thompson. Did Mr. Wyatt ever indicate that he had any
trouble obtaining any of these documents ?
Mr. Buckley. Xo, my impression is that the box was given to him
when he came in the morning and he merelv carried it from there
to the Hill.
Mr. Thompson. How long did he work there before he was entrusted
with this type document ?
Mr. Buckley. Not long, a matter of 2 or 3 weeks.
Mr. Thompson. And who. in the organization, not a name in par-
ticular, but who in the organization tui'ned these documents over to
them, what position did that persoii hold ?
Mr. Buckley. I don't know. I don't know the name; I can't recall
any of the names of the Muskie campaign people.
Mr. Thompson. You said you discussed with Mr. Rietz some alter-
native method of obtaining the information that you wanted to ob-
tain. What alternative methods did you discuss, if you recall?
iMr. Buckley. They were generally in the nature of infiltration and
penetration. They are methods that I consider standard, that I think
most people in political contests know involve volunteers as clerks,
volunteers as stenographers, volunteer press people, volunteer stu-
dents, anyone who woidd ingratiate themselves with the opposition
and gain access to some of them.
Mr. Thompson. So they all encompassed the fact, in effect, of sup-
plying \'o]unteers to Muskie headquarters ?
Mr. Buckley. I did suggest any others — I am sorr}^ T didn't.
Mr. Thotmpson.. I say all of tlie ideas that j^ou discussed encom-
passed the idea of supplying some type of volunteers to Muskie head-
quarters ?
Mr. Buckley. In the Muskie headquarters or in the Muskie cam-
paign, road activity or out-of-town speeches, that kind of thing.
21-296 O - 74 - pt. U -- 6
4450
Mr. Thompson. You mentioned previously in connection with that
when Mr. Edmisten was questioning you that some of this informa-
tion would have been public knowledge. Had you discussed the pos-
sibility of just having someone assimilate what would be public
knowledge as far as Mr. Muskie's position on issues were concerned or
anything like that, or were you concerned about getting them before
anybody else ?
Mr. Buckley. I think the reason that I got, I didn't examine it
that closely, I felt they weren't getting it anyplace else, that the Com-
mittee To Re-Elect the President had no access to that material as in
fact I got.
]\Ir, Thompson. You mentioned what you considered to be tradi-
tional campaign activit}-, and I am sure that will be further pursued,
but I will not take any more time at this point, so I have no further
questions at this time.
Thank you.
Senator Ervin. Senator Talmadge.
Senator Talmadge. INIr. Buckley, when and where did vou first meet
Mr. Elmer Wyatt?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, I met him in the early sixties in Washington.
D.C. At the time, he was driving a taxicab, and at the time, I was with
the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Senator Talmadge. AVas there anything peculiar about the first
time you met him ?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, my recollection is, and I have not verified
this with iNIr. Wyatt, that he was one of several people that we inter-
viewed in connection with some arrests made in la gambling establish-
ment.
Senator Talmadge. Was he playing cards in the gambling establish-
ment ?
Mr. Buckley. ]My recollection is that he was there, I am not sure
what he did. We did interview him and some others that were there as
witnesses and they were released. There was not any
Senator Talmadge. After that, vou goU to be good friends, I take
it.
Mr. Buckley. Over a period of years, I saw him occasionally.
Senator Talmadge, AYhen you employed him to infiltrate the ISIuskie
headquarters, what criteria were 3-011 looking for?
Mr. Buckley. As far as a person to infiltrate ?
Senator Talmadge. Yes.
Mr. Buckley. In view of the Siegel article, a cabdriver that was
available and would be willing to take that kind of assignment.
Senator Talimadge, Did you think a man that you had caught in a
gambling bust would be ideal for that sort of duty ?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, he was the only one I knew that was avail-
able for this.
Senator Talmadge. Where did you keep the money that you used to
finance INIr. Wyatt in his operations ?
Mr. Buckley. I kept it in cash. I kept it in the office in my desk or
in a safe. I kept it at home different times and used it as I had to.
Senator Talmadge. During all that period, you were a full-time
Federal employee ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
4451
Senator Talmadge. Under the Hatch Act ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. I believe you stated that you did not think your
duties were a violation of the Hatch Act?
Mr. Buckley. I did not think they were.
Senator Talmadge. Did you think theft was permitted by the Hatch
Act?
Mr. Buckley. Theft, sir?
Senator Talmadge. Yes.
Mr. Buckley. I did not give it any thought.
Senator Talmadge. You did not know that that was specifically —
you thought that was permitted by the Hatch Act ?
Mr. Buckley. I had no reason to consider it theft under the cir-
cumstances.
Senator Talmadge. Do you not think taking someone else's personal
documents and photographing them and delivering them elsewhere is
theft?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir; I do not.
Senator Talmadge. What do you think it is ?
Mr. Buckley. I am not sure what I think it is.
Senator Talmadge. You do not think it is singing in a choir, do you ?
Mr. Buckley. I do not know^ how to respond to that, Senator.
Senator Talmadge. You would not think it is one of the highest vir-
tues of mankind, would you? I will put it that way.
Mr. Buckley. Senator, I think it is political espionage, I think it is
infiltration. I think it is penetration. I think it is something that occurs
in every major election that happens in this country.
Senator Talmadge. You think it is perfectly legitimate ?
Mr. Buckley. I think it is valid.
Senator Talmadge. You do not feel contrite about your part in it
whatever ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir ; I do not.
Senator Talmadge. Why did you take the fifth amendment, then,
and ask for immunity before you testified ?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, I am not familiar with the full range of law
in the new election laws and statutes. For that reason, I thought that
there may be something in those new laws that verged on this kind of
activity.
Senator Talmadge. Your operation was strictly cash. You received
the money in cash and paid it out in cash, did you ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. No records were retained ?
Mr. Buckley. We did not keep any records.
Senator Talmadge. How many times did you deliver photographs
of documents that you took from Senator Muskie to Mr. Rietz or the
Committee To Re-Elect the President ?
Mr. Buckley. My estimation would be twice a month to each, and
if it went 7 months, approximately 15 times. If it went 8 months,
maybe two or three more times.
Senator Talmadge. Did you think the operation was larger than you
first envisioned that it would be ?
Mr. Buckley. Larger, sir ?
Senator Talmadge. Yes, sir.
4452
^Ir. BrcKJLET. Xo : I did not think it was larger.
Senator Taoiadge. Did you think it was more productive?
^rr. Buckley. I was surprised that at the early development of this
kind of material being available to this man. I did not em^ision that
such a thinor would happen as quicklv as it did or that it would happen
at all.
Senator Tal:madge. Did you get more secret information than you
thought you woidd ?
Mr. BrcKLET. I did not see any classified information in that mate-
rial. Senator.
Senator Talmadge. Confidential ?
Mr. Buckley. I did not see confidential. I saw sensitive material.
I do not think any of it was classified.
Senator Talmadge. You did find some sensitive material, then?
Mr. Buckley. I woidd think the Rehnquist draft was a sensitive
piece of paper.
Senator Talmadge. You were not paid for your acti^-ities. were you?
Mr. Buckley. Xo. sir.
Senator Talmadge. You thought you were serving the cause of re-
electing the President. I presume ?
Mr. Buckley. I would answer, "yes." I would not put it that way. I
tliought that I was providing a ser\'ice that I was asked to do. I cer-
tainly had a preference of candidates and would have preferred that
a Republican President be reelected.
Senator Talmadge. You thought you were ser^^ing friends ?
^Ir. Buckley. Part of it.
Senator Talmadge. Xow. in your operations with Mr. AVarren. did
they differ any from your previous operations when you delivered the
documents to Mr. Rietz ?
Mr. Buckley. He was more punctual. He was on time and had
caused me a lot less concern than my relationship with Rietz over
the previous 3 or 4 months.
Senator Talmadge. You also. I believe, delivered some actual docu-
ments to Mr. Warren in lieu of photographs, did you not ?
Mr. Buckley. Xot documents. Senator. There were occasions when
the taxicab driver would bring a press release from the press table
and that would be delivered in its form. There were perhaps two oc-
casions when I enlarged and printed the material for Hunt.
Senator Talmadge. Did Mr. Rietz ever tell you that information
which you had received from the Muskie camp had been leaked to the
press ?
Mr. Buckley. On the contrary, lie told me that that memo had not
come from the Committee To Re-Elect. He told me at that time, when
I confronted him with it. A year later or so, he told me that he had
lied to me and that in fact, that memo had come from the Committee
To Re-Elect to Evans and Xovak.
Senator Talmadge. Did any information which vou received from
the Muskie headquarters and' delivered to Mr. Rietz get delivered to
the press, the news media ?
Mr. Buckley. I am not aware of any beyond the Evans and Xovak.
S<^nator Talmadge. He did inform you that some of it was leaked
to Evans and Xovak ?
Mr. Buckley. That one particular memo. He told me long after the
campaign that the committee had sent that to Evans and Xovak.
4453
Senator Talmadge. "What was the total amount of funds that you
received for the operation ?
Mr. BrcKLET. Senator, my recollection is that we went about 7
months. If it is 7 months. S7.<)00. If it was 8 months, it is S8.000. I am
thinkinof of the period from September 1971 to April 1972.
Senator Talmadge. And that covered Mr. AVyatt's salary, the office
rent, photographing material, et cetera ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes. sir.
Senator Tal:madge. Xow. following the break-in. when it was in the
newspapers, you recognized that the alias that you had been dealing
with. ^Ir. "Warren, was. in fact. Howard Hmit. Did you become con-
cerned al)out that i
Mr. BrcKLET. Following the break-in. the name Edward "Warren
appeared in connection with payment for some rooms in the "Watergate
Hotel and the Howard Johnson. I do not know whether I was con-
cerned, but it occurred to me that this was the same guy that I had
been meeting.
Senator Tal:madge. Did you discuss it with the Committee To Re-
Elect tlie President ?
Mr. Buckley. I do not think I did. There was not anyone that I was
acquainted with to discuss it with. I certainly did. in the next year,
discuss it two or three times with Rietz.
Senator Talmadge. You did discuss it with Mr. Rietz ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes. sir.
Senator Tal:hadge. Did he advise you to go to the authorities and
tell them about it ?
^Ir. Buckley. Xo. he did not.
Senator Talmvdge. Did you give any thought to going to the au-
thorities and telling them about it ?
Mr. Buckley. Xo. sir.
v^enator Talmadge. You gave no thought to informing the FBI ?
Mr. Buckley. Xo. sir.
Senator TAL5L\r>GE. VThy not ?
Mr. Buckley. Informing the FBI about what activities I had been
involved in ?
Senator Talmadge. Activities that you had performed in your asso-
ciation witli Mr. Howard Himt ?
^Ir. Buckley. Senator, I didn't see any connection between what
activity I had been involved in that terminated 3 or 4 months before
the TTatorgate arrests and the rubber gloves and the burglary tools
that were used in the Watergate.
Senator Talmadge. You were meeting him on the street in a clandes-
tine maimer and l)oth of you were using aliases and transporting docu-
ments and casli money. Didn't you tliink there might be something a
little mvsterious about it ?
Mr. Buckley. I tliink that goes on in "Washington. Senator.
Senator Talmadge. You didn't think it was a normal transaction
like iroing in a restaurant and buying breakfast, did you ?
^Ir. Bi-CKLEY. I thought it was a normal transaction for an election
year.
Senator Talmadge. You thought appearing on corners, both parties
using aliases, transferring stolen documents and photographs, was a
normal transaction in an election vear ?
4454
Mr. Buckley, I don't know about the stolen documents, I think that
would be called discrete. That is the way that I attempted to keep it.
Senator Talmadge. Where did you learn ethics in political cam-
paigns, Mr. Buckley ?
Mr. Buckley. I suppose I learned it from a period 1964 to 1073.
Senator Talmadge. Was that in some political machine in some l)io:
city, or how did you learn it in that f asliion ?
Air. Buckley. I learned much of it in West Virtjinia.
Senator Talmadge. Now, did you ever discuss your involvemeiit in
the Muskie intelligence operation with your superior. Mv. Jerris
Leonard?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, Jerris Leonard is a member of a law firm in
this city. I have had discussions with Mr. Leonard and T would stand
on the lawyer-client privileged communications Avith him in regard
to the activity that we have been discussing today.
Senator Talmadge. Did anyone ever instruct you to remain silent
on your part in the matter ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir.
Senator Talmadge. They did not.
Thank you, jNIr. Buckley. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervik. Senator (lurney.
Senator Gurney. Thank you, i\Ir. Chairman.
Mr. Buckley, what did you expect to find in this activity, what really
useful information?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, when it started. I didn't know what to find. T
didn't know but what he would be rejected — meaning the cabdriver. I
certainly thought that it would be not much of a chore to find out where
the Senator was going to be for weeks at a time, what the position of
the Senator would be on controversies and issues. A staff list of his vol-
unteers was made available to the cabdriver within a matter of days.
They all were furnished a staff list with the telephone numbers of
all the volunteers on it.
Senator Gurney. Are you saying that what you were looking for
was really general intelligence as to what Senator Muskie was doing
in his campaign and things he was saying, or tended to say?
Mv. Buckley. Yes, sir. It didn't occur to mo that that would be diffi-
cult to find out at all.
Senator Gurney. As I understand the Hatch Act — I don't have it
before me here — but it is unlawful in your official capacity, if you are
a Government employee, to interfere with an election or influence an
election. I understand that you had a job with the OEO. Is that
correct ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurxey. What was the job ?
]\Ir. Buckley. I was director of investigations — director of in-
spections.
Senator Gurney. Did you in any way, in this INIuskie operation, use
your official position ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir, that was one of five or six rules that I had
with Tvietz, tliat there would be no Government facilities or material
used, that it would be done on my own time, that nothing illegal would
be involved, and that I would be the judge of what activities and what
responsibilities the cabdriver was to have.
4455
Senator Gurnet. And this is why you think tliat you did not violate
the Hatch Act ?
Mr. Buckley. That is one reason that I do not think so. The Hatch
Act, as I read it, deals with and anticipates collectino; of funds for po-
litical activity, i)assino- out literature, runnino- for office, takino; part in
partisan conventions or meetings, that kind of thing. It is fairly well
spelled out in the act.
Senator Gurney. Both the chief counsel or counsel who is doing the
questioning for the majority and Senator Talmadge touched upon
j)rior activities, in West Virginia and North Carolina, as I understand.
Did these involve dirty tricks? What did they involve, anyway? Will
you explain ?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, for the most part in West Virginia, I was
occuj^ied for 4i/> months in investigating irregidarities on the part of
the preceding Governor of the State of West Virginia.
Senator Gurney. Who was that ?
Mr. Buckley. That was Governor Barron, Gov. Walter Barron
of West Virginia.
Senator Gurney. "N^Hiat did you find out ?
Mr. Buckley. I maintained a running account of the activity that
we were involved in there. AVe found out that a million and a half
dollars of Federal flood relief money was completely dissipated. We
found out that there were kickbacks involved in dummy corporations
l)urportedly designed to do this cleanu]) after the flood. And all of this
m.aterial was published and was iiublicized in the State of West Vir-
ginia. Subsequent to 1964, that Governor and many of his top aides
liave been indicted and convicted for misuse of Federal funds.
Senator Gurney. Was this Governor a Republican Governor?
Mr. Buckley. He was a Democratic Governor.
Senator Gltkney. And you turned your information over to the
proper authorities ?
INfr. Buckley. We turned it over to tlie candidate, who made it avail-
able to tlio proper authorities, the FBI.
Senator Gurney. This resulted in indictments and convictions?
INIr. Buckley. Yes, sir, ultimately.
Senator Gurney. So 3^ou weren't doing dirty tricks? You were
investigating?
Mr. Buckley. Investigating all of the time. The dirty tricks
Senator Git^ney. Were any Republicans involved in this illegal ac-
ti\'ity tliat resulted in convictions?
]\Ir. Buckley. No, sir.
Senator Gurney. What were you doing in North Carolina? Were
those dirty tricks ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir, I mentioned that on two occasions, at the re-
quest of tlie Reiniblican candidate, I went to look into a situation of
rai)e in a State institution tliat was never reported.
Senator Gurney. ^V\M\t did that have to do with the campaign?
]\Ir. Buckley. At that |)aiticular time, it amounted to what would
appear to be negligence and a coverup l>y the State authorities of this
situation.
Senator Gurney. Go on.
;Mr. Buckley. In the second instance, it involved a review of regis-
trations and voting in the 1968 election in the Durham area.
4456
Senator Gtjrney. And what did you find out there?
Mr. Buckley. It was based on allegations and we did find some in-
stances where Democratic registrants were registered from vacant
lots ; in other instances, where people Avho had been dead voted in that
campaign.
Senator Gtjrney. What about Republicans ? Were they involved ? I
Did you find irregularities there ? j
Mr. Buckley. I didn't review the Republican registration.
Senator Gurney. This was the extent of your activity, and it did
not involve dirty tricks then ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir.
Senator Gurney. That was purely investigating into election irreg-
ularities ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. How many documents did you photograph in
this IMuskie operation ? Do you recall ?
Mr. Buckley. I do not recall how many.
Senator Gurney. Approximately ?
Mr. Buckley. There would be times when we wouldn't photograph
any. There would be times when there would be three or four and
there might be a time, as in the case of the draft that I am talking
about, while it was one document, it might have run 10 or 11 pages.
Senator Gurney. Can you describe these documents in any more
detail ? You mentioned one or two. What about some of the others ?
Mr. Buckley. No more detail than a memo from a staffer to another
staffer or a memo from a staffer to the Senator, or a double-spaced
draft of a paper on — and I am not sure there was one — on the unem-
ployment rate.
Senator Gurney. These were documents that were being carried
from his campaign headquarters to his Senate quarters. Is that correct ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes.
Senator Gurney. Were these going to the Senator to keep him in-
formed about what was going on? Was this the idea or what?
Mr. Buckley. Possibly, or it could be that there was staff in the
Senator's office that would need to consider these documents of the
drafts. They weren't a finished product. They were not an announce-
ment or written in the form of a speech.
Senator Gurney. Did you find any information in what you photo-
graphed to indicate that there was any surveillance or intelligence-
gathering being done by the INIuskie campaign against any of the
other candidates ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir.
Senator Gurney. Did anybody indicate to you that any of this
information was useful in these documents ?
Mr. Buckley. I did not discuss it at all with Hunt, and I never had
an indication from Rietz that anything was useful. On the contrary,
there were complaints. Senator, especially^in the early days, that the
film wasn't right, that it was fuzzy, that they couldn't read it, that it
was upside down — that type of thing ; not many accolades.
Senator Gurney. Maybe you should have taken a course in
photography.
I don't have any other questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye.
4457
Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr, Chairman. Mr. Buckley, did you
consider your activities to be political in nature ?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, I considered them to be in the political area.
Senator Inouye. And more specifically, political espionage?
Mr. Buckley. I would accept that term.
Senator Inouye. Who was your sponsor when you were appointed
to your job at OEO?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, I don't think that was a political appoint-
ment. I had no sponsor. I had some 4 years experience with the Eco-
nomic Opportunity Act and prior to that some 15 years of investiorative
experience. I did not have a sponsor. The director knew me, the Direc-
tor asked me to come down, I had refused him on one previous occasion
and had refused another time to accept an assignment in OEO.
Senator Inouye. Were you surprised when you were asked to do
political espionage ?
Mr. Buckley. No, I was not.
Senator Inouye. Wlien you took the job did you understand that
you would be involved in this type of work ?
Mr. Buckley. I had an understanding that what we would at-
tempt— I had no idea that it would result as quickly as it did in that
type of access.
Senator Inouye. I just want it clearer now. "V^Tien you took the
OEO job-
Mr. Buckley. I thought you
Senator Inouye [continuing]. Were you asked to do political
espionage ?
Mr. Buckley. No, no ; I had no idea and I was not asked for the
Senator Inouye. I am certain you were aware that the administra-
tion was opposed to political activity being carried out by grant recip-
ients of OEO funds such as those involved in legal services and com-
munity action programs.
Mr. Buckley. It has always been a violation of tlie guidelines.
Senator Inouye. And I presume as part of your job as chief investi-
gator you were overseeing complaints about grant recipients being
involved in political activities?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouy^e. If you discovered a recipient engaged in partisan
political activity, what did you do ?
Mr. Buckley. We would submit reports to Civil Service Commission
or to the appropriate program people in the agency.
Senator Inouye. Now, your activities, your political espionage activ-
ities were carried on during what hours?
Mr. Buckley. Generally between 11 and 12, maybe once a week or
maybe twice in some weeks.
Senator Inouye. During the daylight hours?
INIr. Buckley. During the daylight hours.
Senator Inouye. This is during your working hours ?
Mr. Buckley. During my lunch hour.
Senator Inouye. 11 to 12?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. I thought you testified at times they were 8 o'clock
in the morning?
4458
Mr. Buckley. I don't believe I did. 8 o'clock in the morning ?
Senator Inouye. Yes.
Mr. Buckley. I don't believe I did.
Senator Inouye. You didn't think that you were doing political
activity while being paid by the Federal Government?
Mr. Buckley. I didn't think I was violating the Hatch Act, Senator.
I would consider it related, politically.
Senator Inouye. So you don't think there is any similarity between
grant recipients carrying out political activity and you carrying out
covert political espionage?
Mr. Buckley. I would not draw a distinction. I don't recall many
grant recipients tliat were ever disciplined in any fashion for involving
themselves in political activity.
Senator Inouye. In other words, you feel that the subpena here is
unjustly issued?
Mr. Buckley. I did not say that. I have no idea that such is the
case.
Senator Inouye. How would you categorize your activities ? Would
you say that they were illegal ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir.
Senator Inouye. Unethical ?
Mr. Buckley. I would not say it was imethical in the terms of
election year, in the terms of what we were seeking to do.
Senator Inouye. In other words, you are advising the committee
that political espionage is an acceptable practice ?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, I think political espionage goes on all the
time. It has gone on for many, many years. I do not feel that I in-
A-ented it. I know of instances where five or six trained investi2;ators
have conducted surveillances and have participated in national elec-
tions. I expect that kind of thing.
Senator Inouye. I am certain you did not invent political espionage
but does that justify carrying out political espionage?
Mr. Buckley. I do not feel that I need a justification. Someone may
differ with me on that. I do not feel that I have to justify responding
the way I did to a request from Ken Rietz.
Senator Inouye. It was absolutely proper as far as you are
concerned ?
Mr. Buckley. As far as I am concerned it was. Senator.
Senator Inouye. In response to Senator Talmadge's question you
did not feel that it was larceny on the part of you and Mr. Wyatt in
photographing documents without proper authority ?
Mr. Buckley. I do not feel that it was' larceny. I do not know of
any particular statute that would cover that.
Senator Inouye. If some person photographed Government docu-
ments, would you consider that larceny?
Mr. Buckley. I am not sure that I 'would consider it larceny. It has
been done and I am not sure that larceny is the way they proceed on it,
if that would be Government property if they took a photograph, I
am not sure.
Senator Inouye. Would you consider the interception of a commu-
nication or the invasion of privacy as being illegal, immoral, or
unethical ?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, I do not consider candidates for the Presi-
dency of the ITnited States as a private matter. I do not consider we
4459
were invading privacy in that regard. I think it is public. Candidates
expect there will be investigations of them and their activities and I
think candidates expect that there will be attempts to ascertain what
their activity is and what their position on issues is.
Senator Inouye. Do you think we should make a few changes for
the next election ?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, if there is to be legislation that will deal
with political espionage it will be quite complex. I would have no idea
of how you could prohibit it, describe it, and then enforce it beyond
that. I think it is done in every election, the three or four that I have
knowledge of and before that and beyond that, others.
Senator Inouye. Would you consider wiretapping as illegal ?
Mr. Buckley. Do I consider it illegal ?
Senator Inouye. Yes.
Mr. Buckley. Yes.
Senator Inouye. Did you think Mr. Wyatt's activities were legal?
Mr. Buckley. Mr. Wyatt's activities?
Senator Inouye. Yes, sir.
Mr. Buckley. I think it was.
Senator Inouye. Under false pretenses, intercepting communication
was legal?
Mr. Buckley. I do not know what the false pretenses statutes say.
He certainly represented himself to be a volunteer, a deception cer-
tainly. He did many things beyond what he did that were in the
nature of service and I continued on beyond April doing those services
for the Muskie campaign.
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, sir.
Senator Ervin. Senator Weicker.
Senator Weicker. I was not quite sure, Mr. Buckley, when you said
you felt you had a lawyer-client relationship with Mr. Leonard as to
what you were referring to. I thought your attorney is with you here.
Mr. Buckley. My attorney is with me here. The question was asked
whether I had discussed with Mr. Leonard my situation and I at that
point stood on privilege.
Senator Weicker. Was not the relationship between you — correct
me if I am wrong — I thought the relationship between you and Mr.
Leonard was one of employer and employee.
Mr. Buckley. Senator, there was a time when I went to Mr. Leonard
and sought counsel on matters involving mv involvement in 1971 and
1972.
Senator Weicker. All right. Have you ever met Mr. Caufield ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir. Excuse me, I have. I had dinner with John
Caulfield in the White House in 1969, purely as a third party to a din-
ner between Caulfield and a friend of mine. That one occasion I met
him.
Senator Weicker. Did this relate to the campaign ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir.
Senator Weicker. This was strictly a personal meeting between
Mr. Buckley. Personal meeting between Caulfield and my friend
and I were asked to come.
Senator Weicker. You had not known Mr. Caulfield prior to that ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir, I have not before or since.
Senator Weicker. Mr. Ulasewicz ?
4460
Mr. Buckley. No.
Senator Weicker. No ; you say you received some $7,000 or $8,000 —
possibly $7,000, possibly $8,000— for the duties that you performed,
and others performed at your direction. Was any of this reported by
you in your tax returns ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir.
Senator Weicker. And did you report any of the money in the form
of withholding or social security insofar as the money that you passed
on to others ?
Ml'. Bi CKLEY. No, sir.
Senator Weicker. This amount of money has been totally unre-
ported, is that correct ?
Mr. Buckley. It was unreported, I would not have considered re-
porting it as income, certainly, and I do not think I am required to
report it as exi^enses. I do not report per diem expenses.
Senator Weicker. Have you given the committee a detailed list
of your expenses in this matter in relationship to the money received ^
Mr. Buckley. Not a detailed list. I have been over the ground with
the staff on two or three occasions, much in the same manner that we.
have today.
Senator Weickeji. Now, I was not quite clear in my mind as to
your explanations of the investigations in West A-^irginia and in
North Carolina. Were these investigations that you were conducting
in the capacity of working for the House Committee on Education
and Labor ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir; this was 196-t and I was a private employee
working as an investigator for 4i,'2 months in West Virginia. X have
a record of the investigations in the form of newsclips, I would be
more than anxious to put those in the record if the committee would
consider it.
Senator Weicker. This was in what capacity ?
Mr. Buckley. This was as an investigator for the Republican
candidate for Governor.
Senator Weicker. In West Virginia ?
Mr. Buckley. Investigating irregularities of a previous admin-
istration.
Senator Weicker. I see. All right.
Your investigation in North Carolina, in what capacity was that?
Mr. Buckley. As a personal friend to the Republican — as a per-
sonal favor to the Republican candidate for Governor on two isolated
instances I looked at two things that concerned him in North
Carolina.
Senator Weicker. Now, I have got — I am going to be i-eading here
from a memorandum that Avas sent to the Attorney General by Mr.
IMagruder, it is dated January 81, 1972, first, let me ask the question :
Were you at that time on January 31, 1972, engaged in the surveillance
operation on JMuskie ?
Mr. Bi CKLEY. Yes, sir.
^ Senator Weicker. This memorandum states the attached informa-
tion has come to our attention recently regarding Senator Muskie's
campaign organization signed "Jeb Magruder." I am going to ask you
whether or not any of the items which are identified here are items
which you recall seeing during the course of your activities.
4461
1. Senator Muskie has received an invitation from a Mr. "William G. Mullen,
General Counsel of the National Newspaper Association here in Washington, D.C.
The invitation is for the Senator to appear at their Washington Government
Affairs Conference on March 16-lS. They note in their invitation that they take
a great deal of pleasure in the Senator's introduction of S. 2965, the so-called
"Truth in Government Act of 1971."
JNIr. Buckley. I do not recall that.
Senator Weicker [continues reading] :
2. Senator Muskie has been invited to speak at the 1972 Convention of the
Young Democratic Club of Wisconsin. The convention is scheduled for March 17-
19, 1972. at the Wausau Midway Motor Lodge.
S. Mr. P'rederick Merrill, House Office Building 1422, Washington, D.C. 20515,
has contributed to the Muskie 1972 campaign.
4. Mr. Wally Boman, President of the Polish National Alliance of the United
States of North America, Council 203, Washington, D.C, supports Senator Muskie
and made a personal contrilmtion to his campaign. His address is 5119 Temple
Hills Road, Washington, D.C. 20031.
5. Mr. Norman Hinerfeld, Executive Vice President. Kaiser-Roth Corporation,
640 Fifth Avenue. New York, New York 10019, is a contributor to the Muskie
campaign.
Mr. RiTCKLEY. I have no kno%v]edo:e of tliat.
Senator Weicker [continiiino;] :
Mr. Sam Harris, 120 Broadway, New York, New York 10005 is a generous
contributor.
Mr, Buckley. I have no knowledge of that.
Senator AVeicker [continuing] :
Mr. Jerry Magnin, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia 90067, is a generous contributor to the Muskie campaign.
Mr. Buckley. I have no knowledge of that.
Senator Weicker [continuing] :
Senator Muskie received a letter from Senator Thomas F. Eagleton, who wrote
to him as Chairman of the Democratic Policy Council's Committee on Human
Environment for the purpose of inviting Senator Muskie to put forth specific
suggestions from him or his staff for the 1972 Democratic platform. Enclosed with
the correspondence was an outline which says that the suggested format for
platform suggestions should be double-spaced,
and it goes on to give the detailed niunber of words, et cetera, is that
familiar to you?
Mr. Buckley. I have no recollection of that.
Senator Weicker [continuing] :
9. Mr. Frank S. Bernard. 222 South 24th Street, P.O. Box 487, San Jose,
California 95103, has contributed .$1,000 to the California Citizens for Muskie
Campaign.
j\f r. Buckley. I have no knowledge of that.
Senator Weicker [continuing] :
10. Letter to Senator Muskie from Robert Okin. Financial Consultant, Lincoln
Avenue, West Orange. New .Jersey : "It is my expectation that additional funds
can be available T\-ithin 30-45 days, and I shall send them along to you through
Harold Grant."
Mr. Buckley. I have no recollection of that.
Senator Weicker. You have no knowledge of any of those types of
documents ?
Mr. Buckley. 'No, sir.
4462
Senator Weicker. And only in the most o;eneral way do you recall
the matters that you photographed and turned over either to Mr. Kietz
or to Ml". Wari'en ?
Mr. Buckley. That is riglit.
Senator Weicker. And in no c^ase were any of the matters that you
turned over related to Hnancial contributions?
Mr. Buckley. Not to my recollection. Senator.
Senator Weicker. All "right. I am almost through my questioning
here, just two more questions.
Can you be more specific and tell me about other instances, other
Presidential elections, senatorial elections for that matter, guber-
natorial elections aside from your West Virginia work where espionage
of the type you were engaged in occurs? You keep on referring to this
as the basis for
Mr. Buckley. As a common practice ?
Senator Weicker. Yes.
Mr. Buckley. Well, I certainly can recall, and the committee is
aware of the 1960 election.
Senator Weicker. I beg your pardon ?
Mr. Buckley. The 1960 Presidential election.
Senator Weicker. And you ha\e some personal knowledge there ?
Mr. Buckley. I have done some investigation in regard to that
election.
Senator AYeicker. Investigation of the election, of individuals in
the election. Was this going on during the election or is this an in-
vestigation after the election was over ?
Mr. Buckley. I have been in\estigating in recent weeks the activity
of several trained investigators in the 1960 campaign of Kennedy
versus Nixon.
Senator Weicker. Who has authorized you to do this investigation?
Mr. Buckley. Who authorized me to do it? I am doing it for a local
law firm.
Senator Weicker. Which law firm ?
Mr. Buckley. Leonard & Cohen.
Senator Weicker. Let me get this straight, you are investigating
the work of investigators who investigated the"^ 1960 campaign ?
Mr. Buckley. No; I am investigating the activity of investigators
who worked in the 1960 campaign. In espionage-type political activity.
Senator Weicker. But now, you say that you are doing this at the
present time. So, obviously, this would not be a justification for the
actions which you took during the course of the 1972 election. I mean,
I gather you were motivated or you justified those actions at the time
on the basis of knoAvledge that you had that similar practices were
employed in other elections?
Mr. Buckley. On the basis of my feeling that political espionage
or ])olitical intelligence gathering, jiolitical fact gathering, i)olitical
information is done as a matter of course in elections, as a matter of
practice.
Senator Weicker. Well, I want the specifics. I want the specifics
you had in hand when you launched on this type of work in Senator
Muskie's campaign. This was the basis, you told me, of what
justified
Mr. Buckley. I had the specifics in 1968 and I had the specifics in
1972, and the general feeling that it is done in all elections.
4463
Senator Weicker. And this was of your own personal knowledge ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. Well, I will end the questioning just with a com-
ment, and I am sure the conmiittee will otq into this further, Mr.
Buckley. Mine is a very small State, but to the best of my personal
experience, it doesn't ^lo on. Since we are here in front of the public,
I think we had better o;et both points of view out on the table. Quite
frankly, I think the people of Connecticut, and I think the attitude is
shared by most other people in this country, don't think it should go
on. I have heard a fjreat deal of oenerality as to all these instances,
the types of thino- that you are enga<^ed in. I have heard very little
in the way of specifics.
Mr. Buckley. Senator, at the conclusion of campaifjns, these things
are forgotten. Frequently, people wlio are involved in gathering intel-
ligence on other parties sit and talk about them and enjoy them in
later years. I served on a very partisan committee in the House of
Representatives for 4 years and there was intelligence gathering and
spies in each of our camps. We expected it. When we detected it, we
tried to plug it.
Senator Weicker. You mean there were spies on the committee ?
Mr. Buckley. Democrat versus Republican, yes. sir.
Senator Weicker. Tell me about it, now. Give me an example.
Mr. Buckley. I will give you an example in 1967, when the Rules
Committee was considering the P>onomic Opportunity iVct. We had
drawn a list of 50 questions for the Republican members on the House
Rules Committee. Our office was invaded and that list was taken and
we found out the next dav that the Democratic staff liad our list of
questions. Congressman H. Allen Smith ran an investigation on that
and we did not discover who took them.
Another time, I attended a s])eecli, a lecture by Sol Alinsky in a
local church with one of the Congressmen on our committee. Staff
on the other side of the committee took our ])ictures at that lecture,
hoping to get the Congressman aiul I, more particularly the Congress-
man, in a picture with Sol Alinsky to show that the Congressman, I
suppose, was a liberal Congressman, or tliat he was a Sol Alinsky
sympathizer.
Now, these are facts of life. I think that these things happen and
when I could, I would try to ascertain what the position of the Demo-
crats would he on a conti-oversial bill such as the Economic Opportunity
Act.
Senator Weicker. And these were the thoughts that were running
through your mind when you agreed to go ahead and spy on Senator
Muskie's headquarters ?
Mr. Buckley. Xot really. I didn't think these things at all. T^Hien I
was enlisted, I didn't analyze it, or try to turn it down. I thought it was
a very natural and easv thing to accomplish.
Senator Weicker. It was a natural thing to spy in an election?
Mr. Buckley. ISTatural to me. Senator.
Senator Weicker. Well, you know, sometimes, I tell you, when I
go back to Connecticut, T think the whole world is turned upside down
by what seems to be natural around this town. But I suggest you
get out of Washington, D.C., because it isn't natural for the State of
Connecticut, and I will let the other Senators speak for themselves.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
4464
Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya.
Senator Montoya. Mr. Buckley, how long were von a member of the
FBl^
Mr. Buckley. 131/^ years, Senator.
Senator Montoya. When yon entered the FBI, did yonr qualifica-
tions as a lawyer play an important part in being admitted?
Mr. Buckley. I think it was a requirement at that time.
Senator Montoya. And when you left the FBI, you wxnt to work
for a committee in the Congress.
Did you work with that committee as a lawyer?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir, I worked with them as an investigator to
start.
Senator Montoya. And how long have you been a member of the
bar?
j\Ir. Buckley. I have been a member of the bar for 21 years.
Senator Montoya. Have you practiced any law at all ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Do you pride yourself in being a member of the
bar? Do you take great pride in being a member of the bar?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, I avoid pride when I can. I was happy
when I passed the bar.
Senator Montoya. Do you feel an obligation to your profession
ethically ?
Mr. Buckley. I certainly do. I would if I were practicing law, I
am sure.
Senator Montoya. Well, do you feel that you have an obligation
as an individual to your profession, irrespective of whether or not
you ai-e practicing law ?
Mr. Buckley. I don't know what obligations I have to my profes-
sion. I pay my dues and I observe what I consider to be a reasonably
ethical existence.
Senator Montoya. Now, you admitted a few^ minutes ago that you
were engaged in political espionage?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. That is what you call it?
Mr. Buckley. That is what all people call it. I don't argue with this
term at all.
Senator Montoya. And that this political espionage was designed
to aid one of the candidates for President ?
Mr. Buckley. Designed to aid his committee, yes.
Senator Montoya. Now, you also stated that while you were doing
or while you were engaged in political espionage, that you were an
employee of the Office of Economic Opportunity ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. Were you carrying out these activities during
the day ?
Mr. Buckley. I was carrying them out during a period of 11 to 12
o'clock on 1 or 2 days a week.
Senator Montoya. Eleven to twelve and
Mr. Buckley. Eleven in the morning to 12 noon on 1 or 2 days a
week.
Senator Montoya. Why did you pick that hour?
]Mr. Buckley. This hour was picked up by the people who were
sending the box from Muskie campaign headquarters.
4465
Senator Montoya. And that is when you would take your lunch?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. And did you do this continuously, without fail ?
At that particular hour ?
Mr. Buckley. There were many days, Senator, that I could not ar-
range to meet the taxicab driver. There were many days that he did
not call me, there were many days that he was accompanied by other
members of the Muskie conimittee staff and that would preclude our
meeting.
Senator Montoya. The point I am trying to make is did you feel
that because you were undertaking this task during your so-called
lunch hour, whether it be 11 to 12 or 12 to 1, that you were then acting
properly and not violating the Hatch Act as an employee of the
U.S. Government?
Mr. Buckley. No, I don't relate the two. Senator. I have never been
uncomfortable with the quid pro quo between the Government and
me. I have been with them 25 years. I think they did well by me and
I think I did my work for the 25 years.
Now, the Hatch Act, I think, is a different question. It was not be-
cause it was 11 to 12. I didn't think that activity was covered by the
Hatch Act. I don't think it is spelled out in the Hatch Act.
Senator Montoya. Well, in what way is it different, then ?
Mr. Buckley. I don't think they are the same thing. I think they
are apples and pears. In one way, I am satisfied that I was not using
any Government time or any Government resource to meet this man at
II o'clock, and on the other hand is the Hatch Act, and I don't feel
that I was in violation of the Hatch Act, for different reasons.
Senator Montoya. Now, I am going to read you one of tlie canons
of ethics that governs the behavior of lawyers and their respon-
sibility. It is canon ECl-5.
A lawyer should maintain high standards of professional conduct and should
encourage fellow lawyers to do likewise. He should be temperate and dignified
and he should refrain from all illegal and morally reprehensible conduct. Be-
cause of his position in society, even minor violations of law by a lawyer may
tend to lessen public confidence in the legal profession. Obedience to law exem-
plifies respect for law. To lawyers, especially, respect for the law should be more
than a platitude.
Do you feel that this provision applied to you ?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, I have no problem with that provision. I
see nothing illegal in the activity that we have been talking about
that went on from September 1971 to April 1972.
Senator Montoya. Then you stated a few minutes ago that Mr.
Wyatt, who was the courier for these documents, was engaged in
some kind of deceit.
Mr. Bi'Ckley. I woidd be comfoi'table with the word "deception."
I think deceit is a little something different.
Senator Montoya. Now, would you say that he was engaged in an
act of dishonesty ?
Mr. Buckley. I would not say that.
Senator Montoya. Well, was it not dishonest of him to transfer some
of these documents to you temporarily when he was working for the
Mnskie campaign ?
Mr. Buckley. Iwould not term that dishonest.
Senator Montoya. ^^Tiat would you call that ? Disloyalty ?
Mr. Buckley. I would call it political espionage.
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 7
4466
Senator Montoya. And you don't feel that political espionage hasj
some elements of dishonesty in it ?
Mr. Buckley. I think it has elements of deception. I don't think \
it has elements of dishonesty. I don't think anything was taken. I
don't think any doors were broken down. I don't think any rubber
gloves were used. I don't see any theft involved.
Senator Montoya. Do you feel that there was any fraud involved ;*
Mr. Buckley. I think there was fraud involved.
Senator Montoya. Then I will read you some of the items of mis-
conduct that would constitute unethical conduct on the part of a
lawyer. I read from DRl-102 : ''Engage in conduct involving dis-
honesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation."
Now, you participated in this act with Mr. Wyatt, as you have
stated. Now, would you think that your l)ohavior constituted unethical
coiuiuci" on the ])art of a lawyer?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, No. 1, 1 was not acting as a lawyer, and No.
2, I don't think that this involvement fits the section you just read.
You are talking about fraud and dishonesty. I think you are talking
about something different, something illegal.
Senator Montoya. Then I will ask you the question : Don't you think
that the code of ethics governing the legal profession applies to all
lawyers 24 hours a day, irrespective of whether they are practicing the
profession or not ?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, I think the general standards certainly
would apply to all lawyers. I don't know about 24 hours a day, whether
or not they wei-e practicing.
Senator JNIoxtoya. Do you think that you would remain in the legal
profession as a licensed member of the bar if you violated any partic-
ular act involving a felony ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. You think vou would remain as a member of the
bar?
]\Ir. Buckley. No; I think I would be disbarred. I misunderstood
your question.
Senator INIoxtoya. And by the same token, if you violated any of
the other canons, you would be subject to disbarment, would you not?
Mr. Buckley. I would be if they were in violation and if they were
substantial.
Senator Moxtoya. That is all, j\Ir. Chairman.
Senator Ervix. Senator Baker.
Senator Baker. Thank you, INIr. Chairman.
Senate Resolution 60, which created this committee, Mr. Buckley,
provides that we will inquire into Presidential campaign activities for
1972 as that conduct may relate to illegal, unethical, or undesirable
conduct, or words to that effect. It is clearly limited to 1972. There was
extended floor debate on the Senate floor about whether the resolu-
tion should be amended to extend beyound 1972 and that resolution
was not so amended. So we are dealing with 1972. But it seems to me
that we have a problem here. If we are going to go beyond illegal and
into unethical or undesirable, which are value judgments and highly
subjective in tlieir nature, we would need a bench warrant. I am not
sure that you can decide in the abstract that a particular course of
action is unethical or undesirable on the face of it, but it must need a
4467
benchmark or some basis for comparison. And tliat may lead us beyond
1972. That may lead us some years behind 1972.
I make that preliminaiy statement because I want you to fully
understand why I am asking the next line of questions that I am about
to ask. It is in no way calculated to circumvent the mandate of the res-
olution which created our jurisdiction on this committee but rather
to serve as some further guide on this committee in making those value
judgments as to whether some conduct is undesirable or unethical as
distinguished from illegal.
Mr. Buckley, you entered into considerable colloquy with Senator
Weicker about particularities of certain instances of political espion-
age in j)revious campaigns. I entirely and wholeheartedly agree with
Sentator Weicker when he says he has heard a lot of generalities but
not many details. That troubles me, because I, too, have heard many
witnesses come here and say, well, it is done all the time, or even some
to suggest, well, the defense against certain mattei-s that have been
adduced in this record would be that the Democrats did it, too.
You may be assured that that is not what I am searching for. But
I am searching for some basis for comparison.
Going back to the very excellent question put by Senator Weicker,
we can't do with additional value judgments or subjective analyses.
We need facts. If you have particular important and significant facts
which go into the makeup of the political communities concept of what
is unethical or under undesirable, what is routine and regular, what is
done all the time or what isn't done all the time — if you have some in-
formation about that, I as one member of the committee would like
to have it ; not as a prolonged exposition of the alleged conduct or mis-
conduct or misbehavior on the part of others in other campaigns, but
what is the standard of politics in America? You have not given us
much so far. You have given us a little. If you care to add to that, I,
as one member of the committee, would be happy to hear it.
Mr. Buckley. Senator, I am sorry that I haven't given you more
specifics than I have. I don't think people, prior to this committee's
hearings, were conscious that political information gathering was a
violation of anything and I don't think any effort has been made to
document any of that or to challenge it.
Senator Baker. As I have pointed out in my statement just a mo-
ment ago, we were mandated to inquire far beyond the violation of
statute law, but to inquire also into conduct that might be unethical or
undesirable.
Now, if that is so, if there is a general opinion in the political
community, if I may adjust that phrase, that gathering information
in a surreptitious way by, as you put it, political espionage, was the
normal and ordinary thing to do, or even not unusual, I would like to
have, as Senator Weicker would, additional facts that would back
that up. That is an observation that I often hear, but the record is
bereft of any real substantiation of that claim.
Mr. Buckley. I understand and I am not in a position to document
other instances of it in 1972 or in previous years.
Senator Baker. I suppose if we were trying a lawsuit at this time,
counsel would probably try to qualify you as an expert witness, say
notwithstanding your absence of particular information based on
your total reservoir of experience, do you have an opinion? I am
4468
not certain I want to qualify you as an expert witness, but if we were
trying a lawsuit, that is probably what would happen. That would
be the next step.
But I gather you have already testified that it is your impression
that that was the kind of practice in politics, to gather information
surreptitiously or secretively or deceptively. Is that correct, Mr.
Buckley ?
Mr. Buckley, Yes. Not totally. I think there are many ways to
gather information about the opposition's activities and positions tliat
are not surreptitious. The usual case that I do know of, some going
back to 1964, is a volunteer within an organization who, for some
reason, is disgruntled or malcontent and she goes to the opposition
and says, "Do you know what my boss is doing?" or "Do you know
what he is doing this week ?"
Senator Baker. How would you characterize that, say, a secretary
gets disturbed about her boss' position — the candidate — on a partic-
ular issue and decides to go to the other side and give him, give the
other candidate — the opposition — a whole raft of information, confi-
dential and otherwise, is that
Mr. Buckley. I think she is a spy.
Senator Baiver fcontinuing]. Is that illegal?
Mr. Buckley. Probably not.
Senator Baker. Do you think it ought to be, Mr. Buckley ? I happen
to think it should be and I am struggling for some way to define
that, but if it is going to be illegal we are going to have to describe
it with some precision, but what is your value judgnient? Do you
think that example, the young lady who is a secretary, who thinks
that her boss is on the wrong track and she decides to convey infor-
mation to the other side — ought that be a violation of statute law, in
your opinion?
Mr. Buckley. I think it would be extremely difficult to spell that
out, to cover all situations that could arise.
Senator Baker. Do you think it is undesirable?
^fi'. TU-('KLKT. I tlnnlv if is unfortunate. I think it is a fact of life
and I think we will have it with us.
Senator Baker. Let us think al^out the fact of life for a minute.
We are all aware of our imperfections but we all also are aAvare of an
effort to try to improve on it, anyway. Even if it is a fact of life, does
it have to be a fact of life, can you give me any help on that respect,
let me put it the other way. Do you think it is desirable that that sort
of thing happens? T am speaking still of the example you gave us of
a secretary who decides to spill the beans to the op]:)osition without
money, without coercion, voluntarily, if you please, but is that a
desirable thing to happen ?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, I do not think it is desirable. I think it hap-
pens in the political arena, I think the books are filled with it hap-
pening up on Capitol Hill of goino; to the press and to anthor'ties
and I think the executive branch downtown is loaded with them. I
think the spies that walk around in AVashington and in the executive
departments today number thousands.
Senator Baker. How are you going to do anything about that?
Do vou have any suggestions ?
Mr. Buckley. I have no practical way to stop this type of thing.
4469
Senator Baker. Of course, you come up against a fundamental con-
stitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and the right to exercise
the franchise. While we are not dealing directly with the vote, we are
possibly dealing with the question of, to what extent one may engage
in political activity according to the dictates of his or her own con-
science. Might it not be a matter of convenience if someone decided
he owed a responsibility to disclose certain information assuming
it Avas not statutorily classilied ?
Mr. Buckley. I am sorry, 1 cannot help. Desirable maybe but prac-
tical, I question.
Senator Baker. So I think what you are telling me is that the
transference of information, secretly or surreptitiously for whatever
motive, is in your oi)inion connnon, a routine thing not only in politics
but in Government?
Mr. Buckley. In politics and Government and business in the busi-
ness community.
Senator ]5aker. And you cannot give me any help on how we stop it?
Mr. Buckley. You find them and dismiss them.
Senator Baker. Well, you know when you get into this thicket, and
we get into it regularly in the Congress, that is deciding that some-
thing is bad, that something a little less is probably not illegal and the
next step beyond that is not even immoral, but wdien you get into these
shadings of gray, when we get into them it is the congressional tech-
nique usually to move up or down that spectrum and to draw lines
and say arbitrarily we are going to decide that beyond this point you
will not pass. If we adopt that time-honored and traditional congres-
sional technique, could we start out by saying that it ought to be illegal
to engage and pay agents for the sake of serving the purposes of
political espionage? We could do that. We could say it is an unlawful
occupation.
Mr. Buckley. I suppose you could, and then you would have to spell
out what constituted the illegality involved.
Senator Baker. That is true, and might we go on to the next step
and that gets you into another band of the spectrum where the grays
are equally undifferentiated. Could we agree that it should be unlawful
to surreptitiously gain documents without the knowledge of the owner
of those documents, to photograph them and deliver them to the oppo-
sition ?
Mr. Buckley. That would be specific, and I think it would be a
violation of that statute if you pass it.
Senator Baker. Do you think we ought to pass it ?
Mr. Buckley. I think that would cover that situation. I do not
know how you are going to cover the other hundred situations that
come up.
Senator Baker. I do not either, but I am looking for that line.
Mr. Buckley. That would cover that one, that statute.
Senator Baker. Is that high enough up the ladder so I think it would
be worthwhile ?
Mr. Buckley. I can only answer yes. Senator.
Senator Baker. You know, politics has taken a bum rap. I am a
politician and my father before me and my grandfather before me
was a politician, mv mother was a politician, a Member of the Con-
gress, and I have always held and still hold politics in the highest
esteem. I have, not an exaggerated view of the citizen responsibility
4470
to serve, maybe not all your life, but to serve, and I think of tlie early
patriots who did serve for a while and then ^o back to farming or
quarryino: limestone or whatever they did, or practicin*^ law. But
politics, tiiat is citizen participation in })olitics, is going to continue
to take a bum rap if we leave this business witli everybody deciding
that is the way it is done, that is the way it always happens, and that
is the way it is always going to be because nobody is going to do any-
thing about it. I am not tongue-lashing you, Mr. Buckley, i)ut thinking
out loud.
How can you suggest in view of your experience and familiarity
with this subject, how can you suggest that we change that attitude
aiul pei'ception of politics? Surely we can begin with political es-
pionage, surely there is a way to clo that. Can you give us any other
enlightenment? What else ought to be illegal, what else would happen
to make it not the ordinary thing?
Mr. Buckley. I would make a distinction between the kind of
things we are talking about today and the kind of things you have
been talking about the past weeks, dirty letters and accusations of
immorality, that kind of thing. I do not think they belong in the
same bag of tricks at all.
To start, with political espionage, I am not sure that I see that
that would be illegal.
Senator Baker. Of course, you can go across the whole range of
considerations in political espionage, you can talk about hiring a cab-
driver to gain documents that arc going to be photographed and
turned over to the opposition. You can talk about the situation of
printing scurrilous literature about one candidate or the other, or
fomenting demonstrations, promoting people to demonstrate either
peacefully or violently, carrying signs that are unflattering, "\^^lere
do you draw the line in there ? Can you legislate against those things
or can you give us any suggestion as to where they fall in the spectrum
of political concern ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir, I cannot.
Senator Baker. How are we going to go about this, ^Ir. Buckley?
would you agree with me politics is taking a bum rap and we have
to do something about it?
Mr. Buckley. I would agree with you. I hope I have not inferred
that there is anything per se dirty or dishonest about politics and
that it is not an honorable pursuit.
Senator Baker. Then, how are we going to make it more honorable ?
Mr. Buckley. I think you have been doing a good job for the past 3
months.
Senator Baker. Are you t^alking about the example that we may
create as a result of these hearings in the mind of the public?
^Ir. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. We have mixed reaction to that. I have had wit-
nesses say that that may be the greatest contribution of the committee.
I have others say that it probably will cause the public to drop out of
politics in disillusionment.
So, that coin like most coins has two sides. But we are a legislative
body, the Congress, the Senate and this committee, and while public
inf(irmation and example is one of our legitimate "implied ]-)Owers" —
if I may use an executive department phrase — it is one of our implied
4471
powers, it is not a principal obligation. Our principal obligation is to
recommend legislation, and I gather you are not in a position to recom-
mend any specific legislation that we might take account of in our
report.
Mr. Buckley. No. sir ; I don't feel qualified.
Senator Baker. Mr. Buckley, you brought forth a document, a book
it would appear, in the course of your testimony which I have never
seen and loiow nothing about but*^my curiosity won't permit me not
to ask you what it is.
Mr. Buckley [holding book] . Senator, this is a series of newsclips,
newsstories in the 1964 giibernatorial campaign in West Virginia.
Senator Baker. In the 1964 gubernatorial campaign ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. I would like to go into that but I don't think now, if
you please, Mr. Buckley.
Mr. Buckley. You are welcome to it and you may have it for as long
as you like.
Senator Baker. Obviously it is not within the scope of the commit-
tee's jurisdiction except to tlie extent that it relates to the political
mores and I won't ask you to produce it.
Senator Ervin. Senator, pardon me. I certainly agree it is not within
the scope of our investigation. This committee is not authorized to
investigate all the evil that is — that has occurred in the world.
Senator Baker. Well, you know. Senator Aiken of Vermont re-
marked to me one day when I went to the Senate floor and apparently
looked haggard and tired, and patted me on the shoulder as Senator —
only Senator Aiken can do — and he said, "Howard," he said, "don't
despair, there is a great reservoir of evil in the world and you are not
about to exhaust it," and I am sure we aren't.
But, you know, Mr. Chairman, if I can think out loud in connection
with this witness' testimony for just a moment and then I am through
with my inquiiT, I think it is true that the mandate of this committee
does not extend beyond 1972, except to the extent that I have sug-
gested— that is, how do we evaluate the subjective quality of immoral
or undesirable as distinjxuished from illegal — but when we finish this
record, I have an idea that the committee ought to give some thought
to certifying relevant portions of our record to the standing jurisdic-
tional committees of the Senate, who are not limited to 1972, to look
further into matters that have been made to appear or have developed
from our investigation, because the fact that things weren't all sweet-
ness and light in 1972 does not mean we ought to close our eyes to
what happened m other elections.
That is all I have at this moment, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. You say that you think it is all right to do some of
the things you did because they had been done in times past, and I will
have to say that on this point, the other members of this committee
in interrogating you have assumed that you are an expert in political
activities and, in consequence, have asked you certain hypothetical
questions. I will probably succumb to the temptation to follow their
example.
As an expert on political matters, do you think it is honorable con-
duct for a committee charged with responsibility for electing the Pres-
ident to use campaign funds received by it for that purpose, to employ
4472
persons to bug and burglarize the headquarters of the opposing politi-
cal party?
]\Ir. Buckley. To burglarize and what else, Mr. Chainnan?
Senator Ervin. Bug and burglarize.
Mr. BiTCKLEY. My answer would be no.
Senator Ervin. t take it, I infer, from your testimony that you
think it is all right and moral to undertake to sabotage the campaign
of a person seeking the Presidential nomination or election by spy-
ing upon his activities, by cariying out of his headquartere documents
relating to his campaign and photographing them and transferring
the photographs to other persons in charge of the campaign of the
opposing party, candidates, is that right?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, you used the word "sabotage." I don't think
sabotage applies to this situation. I think it is
Senator Ervin. Will you accept the word "disrupt" instead of "sab-
otage" and answer the question ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir, I will not accept the word because I thinlv
you have had a lot of testimony before this committee that did con-
stitute sabotage and did constitute disruption. I had no intention — I
don't think at any time we disrupted the campaign of Senator Muslde.
Senator Ervin. Well, that is what you were trying to do, weren't
you?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir, we were trying to — I think a candidate is
within his rights to gather intelligence on the opposition. I think the
method by which he gathers it certainly makes a difference. Penetra-
tion and infiltration of an opposition's campaign headquarters, trains,
that type of thing, I don't see anything illegal about those or anything
disruptive or sabotage.
Senator Ervin. Do you see anything immoral in deception ?
Mr. Buckley. Deception ?
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. Buckley. I don't see any degree of immorality in deception
than I do in sabotage or disruption.
Senator Era^n. Do you see any immorality in lying?
Mr. Buckley. In lying, sir ?
Senator Er\^n. Yes.
Mr. Buckley. I am sure there is.
Senator Ervin. Well, didn't you lie to Senator Muskie's organization
by telling them that you were supporting him ?
Mr. Buckley. I didn't. Maybe the taxicab driver did, but he also
told him that he would do errands for him, taking his suits to the
cleaners and taking his baggage to the airport and all of those things,
he did.
Senator Er\t:n. And assist you in taking his words off pieces of paper
and giving them to his political enemies. He did agree to that, too.
didn't he — the taxi driver ?
Mr. Buckley. I would not consider them political enemies. I would
call them opposition.
Senator Ervin. We have had some testimony here about people we
consider public enemies which was rather astounding to me.
Mr. Buckley. No, sir.
Senator Er\t:n. Well anyway, you can't emulate Adam's example
and put your sins over on the taxi driver. As a matter of fact
4473
Mr. Buckley. No.
Senator Eevin [continuing]. The taxi driver didn't do anything ex-
cept what you conspired with him to have him do, did he?
Mr. Buckley. I have no problem with it consciencewise, Mr. Chair-
man.
Senator Ervin. You have no problem with a conscience ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir.
Senator Ervix. Well, do you consider you have a tender conscience
or a callous conscience ?
Mr. Buckley. I consider I have an active conscience.
Senator Ervix. An active. Does it have any activity except activity
which results in stultifying itself ?
]Mr. Buckley. I don't know how to respond to that question. The
ends i ustif y the means, that type of thing, no.
Senator Ervin. You don't believe that ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. Well, how did you perform all of these things you
had performed with the connivance of the taxi driver ? In other words,
here you took the papers temporarily out of the possession of the
Muskie campaign organization and photographed them surrepti-
tiously, and then returned the papers to the Muskie campaign organi-
zation and delivered the photographs of the w^ords on those papers
to the Committee To Re-Elect the President, didn't you?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Well, I don't know whether that is larceny or not
but evidently the Department of Justice considered it to be larceny
when they instituted a prosecution for the stealing of the words of the
Pentagon Papers against Ellsberg.
Mr. Buckley. I don't conceive
Senator Ervin. There might be some technicality that keeps it from
being legal larceny but it certainly constitutes moral larceny.
Mr. Buckley. He stole the papers when they were classified.
Senator Ervin. Yes. Well these papers were private, weren't they ?
You took some of them. Didn't you rifle through Senator Muskie's
mail, open his mail ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir. Not once.
Senator Ervin. Well, you read open mail that you saw — the letters,
the prepared letters.
Mr. Buckley. I am not sure I read Senator Muskie's letters.
Senator Ervin. Well, how many documents did you take out of his
headquarters and photograph and then return the documents to his
oganization and give the photographs of those documents to the Com-
mittee To Ee-Elect the President ?
Mr. Buckley. Several.
Senator Ervin. Several. Would that be 50 or 60 or 70 or 100 ?
Mr. Buckley. I would not be able to estimate at all accurately. I
would say dozens, 2 or 3 dozens.
Senator Er\^n. Do vou reckon it was that little?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, I am sorry, I have no idea how many there
were.
Senator Ervin. Is it fair for me to infer from your testimony that
you have been engaged in politics a long time ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir.
4474
Senator Ervin. How long have you been engaged in politics ? j
Mr. Buckley. I have been acquainted with the political area since'
1964 ; not much, if any, before that.
Senator Ervin. That is a 10-ycar period ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Can you tell tliis committee a single thing that
you did in that period to purify politics ?
Mr. Buckley. To purify politics ?
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mv. Buckley. I would liope that some lessons learned in West Vir-
ginia had purified politics down tliere a little bit since 1964.
Senator Ervin. That is not what you did. That is what somebod}
else did, you say.
JNIr. Buckley. I did all of the leg work on it.
Senator ER^^N. I know, but you investigated somebody else?
Mr. Buckley. Eight.
Senator Er\t[n. I am asking you about your activities in politics othei'
than your investigations, Avhat you did to help the Committee To Rc-
Elect the President and what you helped other persons do to elect
persons to office? In other words, can you name a single, concrete
contribution you liave made in your 10 years of political life to the
purification of the political process ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. Well, you know, if you take your theory that evil
done in the past justifies doing evil in the present
Mr. Buckley. That is not my theory, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Well, maybe it is not your theor}-, but it is the
excuse you gave to this committee for your actions.
Mr. Buckley. My theoiy is that a candidate has a right, and it is
proper for him to gather intelligence on the opposition, and I expect
it is done in most, if not all campaigns.
Senator Ervin. Well, I have never been in a campaign where it was
done as far as I know and I have been in campaigns since 1922.
Mr. Buckley. And you never had any intelligence on any of your
opponents ?
Senator Ervin. None whatsoever except what I could get out of tlie
newspaper.
;Mr. Buckley. OK.
Senator Ervin. I refuse to accept the theory that because there have
been murders and larcenies in every generation, murder has become
meritorious and larceny has become legal.
Mr. Buckley. That is not my theory, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. A\niy do you draw the line where your theory op-
erates on a lesser scale than that ?
Mr. Buckley. I certainly deny there was larceny and murder in
anything that I was involved in.
Senator Ervin. That is all. That is all the questions I have.
Any further questions from anybody?
Senator Weicker. Mr. Chairman, yes, just a few last questions here.
As I understand it, then, you do not feel that you caused any dis-
ruption, but you would admit that what you were engaged in was
spying?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
4475
Senator Weicker. Spying — that is the word ?
Mr. Buckley. Spying is the word.
Senator Weicker. Well, let me just make one comment here. It being
the football season, you can throw that out, but I can tell you, it is
not coming through my side of the line, and I mean it.
How about the public record? Do you think that is a fair place
to draw the line, that anything that is a matter of public record is
fair game in the course of an election ?
Mr. Buckley. I think that is research. I am sure there is much of
that done.
Senator Weicker. And that anything that is not a matter of public
record falls into this very area that you were engaged in?
Mr. Buckley. Much of that was public information.
Senator Weicker. Well, if it was public, what you were engaged in,
if it was a matter of public record, you do not have to use aliases and
photograph things in taxicabs and have plants. In fact, you were
not interested in the public record. You were interested in that which
was not on the public record. Is that correct ?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, I did not liave any design when I started this.
I had no idea what would evolve from it. What I was interested in
is what I was asked to do : Itineraries, position papers, staff lists, that
kind of thing.
Senator Weicker. But you were not interested in the public record,
you were interested in that which was not available through normal
channels to the public.
Mr. Buckley. I am not sure that I was. I did not give it that much
thought.
Senator Weicker. Is this the first time that you ever recruited a
spy to work in a political campaign ?
!Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir. I had a couple in West Virginia and there
were a couple in my camp.
Senator Weicker. I am asking you, is this the first time that you have
recruited a spy to work in a political campaign ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. Is this the first time that you have conducted
this type of an operation where you received papers from the spy,
photographed them, and turned the results of your work over to a
particular individual or political committee? Is this the first time
that you have done that ?
Mr. Buckley. Senator, as far as politics go, it is the first time. I
have deceived and penetrated the Communist Party, the Ku Klux
Klan, the Mafia, and hoodlums in Washington, D.C., with methods
similar to this. The methods are all the same.
Senator Weicker. We are not putting Senator Muskie in that cate-
gory, are we ?
Mr. Buckley. No, sir.
Senator Weicker. But this is the first time you have done this in a
political campaign ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. So that this committee now has your statements,
and those that are privy, which is the whole country, to our discus-
sions, that this is the first time that you have done this tvpe of activity ?
Mr. Buckley. No ; it is not. In 1964, 1 did it. In 1964,'^I fired a couple
of people who were doing it to me.
4476
Senator Weicker. These types of activity. I thought your answer
to me was this is the first time you recruited a spy to work in a political
campaign.
Mr. Buckley. If that is my answer, I will retract it and say there
was some of it in the 1964 campaign.
Senator Weicker. Which you did ?
Mr. Buckley. I had people reporting to me that were working for
the Democratic candidate for Governor. And he had my people re-
porting to him.
Senator Weicker. So this was done not only in the Muskie campaign
by you, which is firsthand knowledge, as far as you are concerned, but
also you did it once before in 1964 ?
Mr. Buckley. That is right.
Senator Weicker. And these are the two instances when you have
engaged in this type of activity ?
Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. Any others where you have done this type of
activity ?
Mr. Buckley. Any others ? No.
Senator Weicker. So on the basis of your two experiences, every-
body does it, is that right ?
Mr. Buckley. I did not say that. Senator. I say it is common that
political intelligence-gathering and political espionage are carried on
in most political campaigns.
Senator Weicker. Well, I am interested in j^our firsthand knowl-
edge.
Mr. Buckley. Well, all right.
Senator Weicker. In your firsthand knowledge, you have donfe this
twice in the course of your lifetime in government and politics ?
Mr. Buckley, Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervix. Any further questions ?
[No response.]
Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, the witness who would follow Mr. Buck-
ley, which is Mr. IMichael ]\Ic]\Iinoway — his counsel, ]Mr. Frank
Haddad, was grounded in Louisville, Ky., and is unable to get to the
committee room until about 4 or 4:30. Therefore, we are unable to
produce a witness after ]Mr. Buckley at this time.
Senator Ervix. Before I excuse you from further attendance, Mr.
Buckley, I am constrained to make the observation that I am some-
what intrigued by your statement that deception is different from
dishonesty.
Mr. Buckley. I think I made a distinction between deception and
deceit.
Senator Er\t:x. Well, evidently, Noah Webster did not know about
that distinction when he made his dictionary.
Ml". Bucki>ey. I think T^ari-y Brown is a deceptive back, but I do not
think he is a deceitful back.
Senator Ervix. The committee will stand in recess until tomorrow
morning at 10 o'clock.
[Whereupon, at 12 :4-3 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene
at 10 a.m., Wednesday, October 10, 1973.]
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1973
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
Washington^ D.C.
The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :05 a.m., in room
318, Eussell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chair-
man), presiding.
Present : Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker, Gur-
ney, and Weicker.
Also present : Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director ; Fred
D. Thompson, minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief
counsel ; Arthur S. Miller, chief consultant ; David M. Dorsen, James
Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief counsels; Marc
Lackritz, William T, Mayton, James C. Moore, Ronald D. Rotunda,
W. Dennis Summers, and Barry Schochet, assistant majority coun-
sels; Eugene Boyce, hearings record counsel; Donald G. Sanders,
deputy minority counsel ; Howard S. Liebengood, Michael J. Madigan,
and Robert Silverstein, assistant minority counsels; Jed Johnson,
investigator; Pauline O. Dement, research assistant; Filer Ravnholt,
office of Senator Inouye ; Bruce Jaques, Jr., office of Senator Montoya ;
Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator Baker; A. Searle Field, assist-
ant to Senator Weicker; Michael Flanigan, assistant publications
clerk.
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. Counsel will call
the first witness.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Michael McMinoway.
Senator Ervix. Mr. McMinoway, will you please stand and raise
your right hand. Do you swear that the evidence that you shall give
to the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God ?
Mr. McMinoway. I do.
Mr. Dash. Mr. McMinoway, I see you are accompanied by counsel.
Will counsel identify himself for the record ?
Mr. Haddad. My name is Frank E. Haddad, Jr. I am an attorney
from Louisville, Ky., and I represent Mr. McMinoway. And may the
record please show Mr. McMinoway is appearing here today pursuant
to a subpena.
Mr. Dash. Yes. Mr. Chairman. He is — Mr. McMinoway is under a
subpena and is not a voluntary witness. Mr. McMinoway has not re-
quested nor has the committee extended any immunity to Mr.
McMinoway.
Mr. Haddad. That is correct.
Mr. Dash. Mr. McMinoway, will you briefly give your background
in political activity prior to the Presidential campaign of 1972 ?
(4477)
4478
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL W. McMINOWAY, ACCOMPANIED BY
FRANK E. HADDAD, JK., COUNSEL
Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir. I became involved in political activities
in 19 — I had originally iDecome active in political campaigns in 1956 '
during the Presidential election of Dwight Eisenhower. Ever since
that period, I have worked in every general election and every pri-
mary in my home State of Kentucky with the addition of the 1966
Tennessee senatorial election and in the 1972 national Presidential
election.
Mr. Dash. During the 1972 Presidential campaign, were you re-
quested by anybody to be a political spy against different major Dem-
ocratic candidates in primary campaigns ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Mr. Dash, I was contacted in early February 1972
and requested to undertake a political investigation and intelligence-
gathering operation.
Mr. Dash. ^Vlio contacted you ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Initially, I was contacted by an old acquaintance
of mine, Martin Blackwell from Washington, who informed me that —
during the course of our conversation — if I was interested in talking
with someone about activities on the national scale in the 1972 elec-
tion, he would have an acquaintance of his contact me.
Mr. Dash. Did such an acquaintance contact you ?
Mr. MclMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. In mid-February, I was contacted by a
man who identified himself to me as Jason Rainer, who expressed a
wish to meet with me in Louisville and discuss employment of the na-
ture you have discussed.
Mr. Dash. "Wlien you say, discussed the employment of the riature
you have indicated, just specifically what was the nature of this em-
ployment? Did you say, intelligence-gathering?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Right.
]\Ir. Dash. "What were you supposed to do to gather this intelligence?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. We had a meeting in Louisville, Ky., at the Ex-
ecutive Inn Hotel on Saturday morning in which we sat down and
spent about an hour and a half working out the details of the spe-
cific assignment. The details, as explained to me. were to work in the
Presidential primaiy States and track and infiltrate into the Demo-
cratic organizations with the purpose of gathering information pur-
suant to organizations and personnel of the said Democratic candi-
dates.
Mr. Dash. So it Avas your express instruction to infiltrate various
Democratic campaign organizations?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Now, did you know that the true identity of Mr. Jason
Rainer was Roger Stone, an employee of the Committee To Re-Elect
the President ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I did not.
Mr. Dash. Did you ever learn that Mr. Rainer was in fact Mr. Stone ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, I did. In April 1978, agents of the Fed-
eral Bureau of Investigation contacted me at my home in Louisville to
arrange for an interview with myself and mv counsel pursuant to the
activities that I had undertaken in 1972 and it was the FBI who in-
formed me of Mr. Rainer's true identity as Roger Stone.
4479
Mr. Dash. The testimony before this committee that we have already
received, Mr. McMinoway, indicates that INIr. Stone actually was an
assistant to Mr. Bart Porter of the Committee To Re-Elect the Presi-
dent, and I would like to read this brief reference to your employment
that appears in the record that came from Mr. Porter's testimony at
page 1543 of the record :
I made total payment of about $6,000 over a 3-month period, again to Mr. Stone,
that was passed on to a Mike. I cannot remember his last name again now. I be-
lieve it was McMinoway from Louisville, Ky., w'ho worked in two or three of the
primary campaigns.
So that the record does show that not only Mr. Stone, but Mr. Porter
of the Committee To Re-Elect the President, was in fact sending on the
money. What financial arrangements actually were made by Mr.
Rainer with you ?
Mr. McMinoway. Originally there had been an agreement reached
I would receive $1,500 a month for my services.
Mr. Dash. Did you receive that amount ?
Mr. Mc^NIiNOWAY. If you would refer to your tab 9 [exhibit No. 238]
in the folder, this is the only documentation of any financial transac-
tions between Mr. Rainer and myself.
Mr. Dash. You are referring in tab 9 to some financial statement that
appears on a lined piece of paper. Was this prepared by you ?
Mr. McMiNow^AY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Does this reflect the total amount of payments that you
received ?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, it does.
Mr. Dash. And it shows on that March 17, 1972, $983. April 14, $983.
April 30, $683. May 12, $983. May 26, $700. June 16, $487. June 29,
$500, and July 8, $487.75. I left the 75 cents off of an earlier one, but
the total appearing on your accounting is $5,808.10, is that correct?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Now, were you aware, by the way, that Mr. Porter at the
Committee To Re-p]lect the President identified you at the committee
under the code name Sedan Chair II ?
Mr. McMinoway. Not in 1972, sir.
Mr. Dash. Did you later learn that ?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir. The staff members of this committee in-
formed me of that.
Mr. Dash. Were you ever aware that your reports or some of your
reports coded Sedan Chair II were forwarded to Mr. Haldeman by
Mr. Magruder through Gordon Strachan, Mr. Haldeman's assistant ?
Mr. McMiNOw\\Y. I first learned that when INIr. Strachan testified
before this committee.
Mr. Dash. You also heard of the testimony of Mr. Strachan in the
record, that he in fact, attached one of your reports to what he stated
was a sophisticated intelligence plan being developed by the commit-
tee, which he later destroyed after the break-in on June 17. But were
you aware of this activity; that is, the fact Mr. Strachan was passing
on this information ?
Mr. ;McMinoway. Not in 1972, certainly.
Mr. Dash. You learned it actually from either the FBI or staff
consultations with us.
Mr. McMinoway. The committee staff initially informed me of that
and then I witnessed it on the testimony, watching the testimony m
4480
Louisville when Strachan testified to the fact that he had — in fact, I be-
lieve he labeled it tab 18 of my report — had been forwarded.
]Mr. Dash. Who did IMr. Rainer actually indicate he was working
for?
]Mr. McMiNowAY. On the initial contact in 1972 he informed me he
was working for a group of concerned citizens that were interested
in the outcome of the 1972 Presidential election.
Mr. Dash. Did there come a time when you had any beliefs or sus-
picions that in fact you were not working for a group of concerned
citizens ?
Mr. MclMiNowAY. No, sir, I feel that they were concerned.
Mr. Dash. Did you ever come to believe that yon may actually have
been employed by the Republican Party ?
jVIr. ]\Ic]MixowAY. Yes, sir. I began to suspect that probably after
maybe a month of employment when the general mode of the activities
and the form of the operation was pretty well set into full force and
it was obvious that I was not bipartisan in any respect, in other words,
I never worked in any Republican organizations.
Mr. Dash. Now, is it true, Mr. MclNIinoway, that you infiltrated
the Muskie headquarters in ]Milwaukee for the Wisconsin primary,
the Humphrey headquarters in Philadelphia for the Pennsylvania
primary, the McGovern headquarters in Los Angeles for the California
primary, and McGovern headquarters in the District of Columbia,
and after the Watergate break-in just before the Democratic con-
vention, the INIcGovern headquarters at the Democratic convention
in Miami ?
Mr. IVfclNIixowAY. All of those assumptions are correct except I
worked in the Humphrey headquarters in Los Angeles and not the
ISIcGovern headquarters. I did have contact with McGovern people
in California, but primarily I was sent to Los Angeles to work in
the Humphrey campaign.
Mr. Dash. Humphre}^? Now, did you choose each of these assign-
ments such as the State to go to on your own or were you following
instructions ?
Mr. INIcMixowAY. I was following instructions.
j\Ir. Dash. These were again instructions of Mr. Rainer who we now
laiow as Mr. Stone.
Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Did you get a specific instruction for each assignment or
were the instructions covered by the initial meeting with Mr. Stone?
Mr. McMtnoway. The itinerary of the different assignments was
set by Mr. Rainer. In other words, he would tell me to which State
to travel, usually to which city, he would tell me what organization
they would like to have information about, but the actual operational
procedures were left entirely up to me.
Mr. Dash. Did you on a fairly regular basis, send Mv. Rainer or
Stone materials that you were able to get from the particular head-
quarters you had infiltrated?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Initially, sir, the procedure Avas, I was supplied
with a post office box in Washington, D.C., to which I would send any
relative document or information that I would feel necessary to
fulfill my obligatioii of iutellio:ence gathering.
Mr. Dash. And you obtained these documents or anv materials that
you felt necessary in your assignment from inside the headquarters
you had infiltrated ?
4481
Mr. McMiNOWAY. The documents I referred to are not private or
secret documents. These documents are documents that were planned
for public inspection. I at no time, during the course of my employ-
ment, copied, borrowed, stole, or removed any documents from the
headquarters other than those which were j^iven to me by a person in
authority to pass out this information.
Mr. Dash. But 3^ou did obtain some of the advanced scheduling of
the candidate, did you not ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir. 1 made it a sj^ecific part of my operation
to work whenever possible on schedulino; and advance work so that
Mr. Dash. And you received this prior to the time that schedule
was made public, did you not ?
Mr. McMixowAY. In most instances, sir, I was working with the
group of people that were making the arrangements for the schedules.
Mr. Dash. Yes; but I mean the advantage of your having it in
advance was that you could provide this information prior to the
actual public publication of this information, was it not ?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. You had advance intelligence?
Mr. jVIcMinoway. The objective was to get the information before
the newspapers printed it.
Mr. Dash. Yes; so that actually at the time you got it, it had not
yet been made public?
Mr. McMinoway. No, sir.
Mr. Dash. You also got such things as copies of lists of workers,
copies of intercoms, numbers of internal staif workers, things of that
nature, did you not?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, I tried to compile myself lists of person-
nel w^orking in the different organizations within that organization.
Mr. Dash. And while you were in the organization — I will get to
your diary in a moment — wherever you could, you read whatever you
could read that was on desks or around, and I think that sometimes
you referred that you pumped various staff members for information.
Is that not true ?
Mr. MclSIiNOWAY. Yes, sir. I did try to read as much as I could and
listen. That was one of the major sources of my information, from
conversations with the actual staff members and organization people.
ISIr. Dash. So that you were ti-ying to do as thorough an intelligence-
gathering operation as you could, having infiltrated in a particular
campaign headquarters ?
Mr. ]\Ic]MiN0WAY. Yes, sir. When I took the job, I made it a point to
tiy to do the job well and verify all the information I could and some-
times I would receive information from conversations and try to verify
them from what I read and vice versa.
Mr. Dash. You used the word "infiltrate" when I asked you if you
became a political spy. I am not trying to deal in semantics. When you
obtained each of these jobs, for instance, when you went up to Wis-
consin and joined the Muskie campaign headquarters operation in
Milwaukee, how did you obtain the job ?
Mr. INIcMiNowAY.The normal j:>rocednre was to start off as a volun-
teer woT-ker in the particular organization from which I wished to
gather information.
Mr. Dash. And how did you represent yourself?
Mr. McMinoway. As a volunteer worker.
21-29G O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 8
4482
Mr. Dash. Interested in working for, say, the ISIuskie primary
election ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir. I progressed throughout the organiza-
tions and throughout the campaign by being able to perform cam-
paign organization activities very successfully. I v^^ould actually work
for the candidate to gain the confidence of the particular organization.
Mr. Dash. You did not, in fact, inform any of these people that you
were, one, a Republican, and two, were being employed to come into
that headquarters for the purpose of obtaining information to send
either to other candidates or back to your employer ? Did you inform
anybody that that was your role ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I was never asked that, sir.
Mr. Dash. Well, you were so successful, perhaps, that nobody even
thought to ask. But you never volunteered that information ?
Mr. McMiNow^AY. No ; I never volunteered that information.
Mr. Dash. As a matter of fact, the success of your operation de-
pended upon the fact that you were able to have the Muskie people,
for instance, in Milwaukee believe that you were a true volunteer in-
terested in helping Muskie's candidacy ?
Mr. MgMinoway. I would assume that that is the reason that they
told me a lot of the stuff they did.
Mr. Dash. Now, in addition to any materials that you might have
sent on to Mr, Stone or Rainer, as you knew him, were you in tele-
phone communication with him ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir, I was.
Mr. Dash. How frequent was the communication you kept with
Mr. Stone?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. In Milwaukee, it was about on an every-Other-
day basis. But later on in the operation, as the operation became
more and more technical and it involved more and more information
gatliering, it became a minimum of daily conversations, sometimes sev-
eral times a day.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Stone was very much interested in what you were
learning on a daily basis, then ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, some of the information that I obtained
was rather timely.
Mr. Dash. Now, did you keep a diary in your infiltration work in
Wisconsin and in Pennsylvania?
Mr. McMiN0\vAY. Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. Dash. I think just for purposes of identification of these
diaries, look at tab 2 [exhibit No. 231], which appears to be a diary
beginning March 21, Milwaukee, ending INIarch 81; and then tab 4
[exhibit No. 2331, a diary, I tliink, which appears to be one in Pliiladel-
phia beginning April 10 and ending on April 22. I think you have had
an opportunity to review these on prior occasions with the staff. Do
these reflect accuratelv, copies of the diary entries you made?
Mr. MrMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, they do.
Mr. Dash. As a matter of fact, your diarv entries were really
handwritten and at a later time you had them typed, is that true?
Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir, at the request of the committee.
Mr. Dash. So what we have here is not really your diary entries,
but a typed copy that you had made of the actual entries?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir.
4483
Mr. Dash. What was the purpose of keeping the diary ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY, So that I would be able to refer back. The par-
ticular operation that I was involved in required a considerable
amount of name-dropping and association and I was involved with
quite a few different people and I was sometimes w^orking in two or
tlirce different headquarters and it was necessary for me to keep a
diary so I knew where I was on particular days and dates and times
and where I planned to go and especially, to keep the people straight,
the names of the people and the particular organizations they worked
in.
Mr. Dash. Now. after your Pennsylvania activities you moved on
to California, the District of Columbia, and later the Miami con-
vention, we do not have an actual diary, but summary reports of
your activities. Did you, after the Pennsylvania activity, cease keep-
ing a diary?
Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir, I went to the note system for two reasons.
One, I was informed by a friend of mine who works in intelligence-
gathering operations for the U.S. Government related to the reelection
committee activities, that if you keep a lot of notes, you might lose your
notes and somebody miglit find your notes. So I felt that the least
amount of written material that I left lying around — what provoked
this initial thing in my room in T/isconsin was broken into and it made
me start to think about, you know, somebody could break in to steal
money and find that, and it might be embarrassing if it came out dur-
ing the time that I was working in these different organizations.
Mr. Dash. The advice might have been well given with regard to
the diary that was actually kept in Wisconsin and Philadelphia, which
the committee now has in its possession.
Mr. Haddad. INIr. Dash, he voluntarily turned that over.
Mr. Dash. Oh, I know.
Mr. Haddad. And no one knew that he had that.
Mr. Dash. I know, but it was in liis possession, and he did volun-
tarily turn that over for the record.
In Wisconsin, what kinds of questions did Mr. Stone ask you ? What
was he interested in obtaining? I think we had some reference in some
earlier infoi-mation that you had given the staff, that Mr. Stone had
questioned you about anti-Muskie activity, anti-McGovern, anti-Nixon
activity, financial contributions to Mr. Muskie, Mr. McGovern. Is this
generally the area you were interested in?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Basically, that was at least a part of the informa-
tion that I tried to gather. iPersonnelwise, I was to try to obtain as
much information on as many of the actual staff of the particular can-
didates, a little about their background and what their specific duties
within the organization were at that particular time. Initially, in the
March period of time, when I was working in Milwaukee, it was of
interest to Mr. Rainer, the contributions that Muskie was receiving,
because this was in the gray line period right before the April 7 Fed-
eral legislation on campaign financing came into effect and they were
interested in the amounts of money, and, if possible, who was donating
the money and so forth.
Mr. Dash. Now, while you were <rathering this information in your
role as infiltrator or as a spy, whichever you may wish to accept, you
4484
occasionally caused some disrui^tion or confusion in Senator Muskie's
campaio;n activities. Is that true ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. Wliat do you have reference to ?
Mr. Dash. Let me refer you to your diary on March 28, which says
that, the entry indicates that you took four people out to — it looks like
"A. O. Smitli Co., to i)ass out leaflets. It was cold, so I talked them into
drinking beer instead of passing out leaflets." I take it that may have
been a reason— that it was cold to go in and drink beer, but at the same
time, you saw to it that the leaflets were not passed out. Is that true?
Mr. McMiNowAY. The leaflets were in fact not passed out. The
motivation was not to disrupt at this particular time. It was just
colder than hell on this particular day.
Mr. Dash. Was it just a coincidence that tlie leaflets were not passed
out?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I don't know whether it was a coincidence or
not.
Mr. Dash. Well, it was in the interest of your operation that the
leaflets were not passed out, was it not ?
JNIr. McMixowAY. It was not in the interest of my particular opera-
tion, but personally, I felt if they didn't get passed out, it would not
hurt anything.
Mr. Dash. Let's follow it up if this was not in the interest of your
operation. Look at ISIarch 29. You say that you first went over
to the Muskie headquarters and obtained a revised schedule of events,
stayed at the headquarters all afternoon. Then your diary indicates
that you went over to the Lincoln Avenue headquarters and removed
the listing of people that were to be contacted Sunday, April 2. So
by your removing that, those people would not be contacted on
April 2, would they ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir; that is not indicated in the diary and
that is in fact— after reviewing the diary — that is not the case. The
people were still called, but I copied the list because it was a list
of names of campaign workers and I forwarded that on to INIr.
Rainer. That document of name^ and workers is in the material
that I provided this committee.
Mr. Dash. Is the entry then incorrect ? The word you used in your
entry is "removed," not copied.
Mr. McMiNOWAY. The entry is correct, but the terminology or
the interpretation of the terminology — by "removed" I didn't mean
that I removed it from the headquarters, but I did in fact obtain
a copy of it.
Mr. Dash. Well, what I am getting at is in addition to intelligence
gathering, there was some other sort of espionage activity you en-
gaged in. On March 30, for instance, your diary says you went over
to the Humphrey headquarters and erave them a Muskie schedule.
That was not intelligence gathering. You were actually giving Hum-
phrey headquarters Muskie schedules.
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes. sir.
Mr. Dash. And that was for the purpose of giving them some ad-
vantage, I take it, over INIuskie ?
i\Ir. INIclMiNOWAY. Yes. sir.
Mr. Dash. And on IVfarch 31, there is an entry that perhaps you
can give us some additional explanation for. You say that you
4485
"went down to headquarters and diverted some election day pre-
cinct materials." What does that mean? What did you do when you
say in your diary you diverted some election day precinct materials?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I don't recall this particular instance. I don't
know.
Mr. Dash. Now, on March 25, 1972, you made a significant entry in
your diary. If you could look at the bottom of the first page of the
diary and let me read this to you, perhaps you can elaborate on this
entry. You went to McGovern headquarters and talked to Southwick*
about Sunday TV interview with Muskie that Southwick planned to
disinipt.
Then if you go on to the next page, the top of the page, you say you
went back to McGovern headquarters and watched McGovern people
making signs for Sunday, like "America Needs a Leader, Not a Cry-
baby." "The McGovern People Are Very Enthused About Marches
Against Muskie."
You indicated you saw these things yourself. Was this an event in
Avhicli you were observing McGovern people actually preparing the
posters and preparing to engage in anti-Muskie activity ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, it was.
Mr. Dash. Did you know how they were going to use these posters ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I know^ how they used them.
Mr. Dash. Could you toll us that? Did they come out — did these
people come out as ISIcGovern headquarters — identified as McGovern
Avorkers ?
Mr. ]\IcMinoway. No, sir, they didn't ; they came out as unidentified
or unalined protesters. The scheme of the thing w^as that, to put the
tiling in retrospect, Muskie had made a plan or had planned an ap-
pearance on a TV Meet the Press type program that was going to be
taped live in Milwaukee during this campaign period and the objec-
tive of the McGovern people was to get outside of the TV station before
Muskie went there to tape the show and have a little protest and hold up
these types of signs, hoping to upset him. At this particular period
of time, ]\Ir. Muskie w^as very vulnerable to heckling and protesting
and the ])rotestin2: and heckling did in fact seem to upset him and
cause him not to be, able to speak fluently and conduct himself in a
controlled manner during campaigning.
Mr. Dash. Actually, on your entiy of March 27, you write that
"his" — referring to Muskie.
His little speech was a disaster. Protesters started in on him as soon as he
stood lip to talk. They had the whole crowd shouting and hollering at him in
about 5 minutes. The amnesty question just totally ruined Muskie's whole
program.
Were these hecklers the same type of people you have indicated from
]\IcGovern headquarters ?
Mr. JNIrlMiNOAVAY. They w^ere in fact the same grou]) of people.
March 27 is a different day and a different incident. This was at the
University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. It w^as the same group of people
who worked in the ISIcGovern campaign headquarters in Milwaukee.
But it was the same type of tactics, the heckling and the signs and so
forth.
♦Subsequent to the hearlnp, the committee received a letter from Thomas P. Southwick
with an affidavit answering the allegations made about him by Michael McMinoway. The
letter and affidavit appear on p. 4892.
4486
Mr. Dash. Did you observe any other activity of the McGovern
people on any other candidate which was directed at one of the other
primary candidates in this way ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, I did, not only in the Wisconsin primary
but also in Florida and California.
Mr. Dash. I am going to talk very briefly to each of the other
primaries.
In Wisconsin, just briefly tell us what you noticed in Wisconsin.
Mr. McMiNowAY. The most outstanding thing in Wisconsin, or the
two or three instances that you will notice on tab 2 of your sheet under
March 23, where they had planted questions among —
There was a debate at the University of Marquette in Milwaukee and this was
a debate planned between representatives of the McGovern staff and representa-
tives of the Muskie staff. The McGovern i>eople had planted questions for the —
they had a question and answer period and they had planted questions throughout
the crowd that they felt would embarrass the Muskie people.
Mr. Dash. On March 23, you have in your diary that the McGovern
people were taking down Muskie signs. Did you observe that ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, in several States.
Mr. Dash. By the wav, how was it that while you were working and
having infiltrated the Muskie headquarters, that you had such freedom
of access to the McGovern headquarters ?
Mr. McMinoavay. Because of my initial contact with the youth move-
ment— my association with the youth movement of the McGovern
people.
Mr. Dash. Who was Mr. Southwick that you referred to in your
diary?
Mr. McMinoway. He was the McGovern coordinator.
Mr. Dash. Was he the one you had gotten to know ?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, I had met him at a headquarters closing
beer drinking session.
Mr. Dash. After the Wisconsin primary election did Mr. Stone-
Rainer instruct you to go to Philadelphia anid infiltrate the Humphrey
campaign?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, it was several days later I received a
procedure call that instructed me to go to Philadelphia.
Mr. Dash. How did vou become a member of the Humphrey cam-
paisrn activity in Philadelphia? "Wliat did you do. how did vou act?
Mr. McMiNow^AY. Part of the procedure that I followed throughout
the campaign activity was, the first day I would arrive in a city that I
Avas assigned to, I would check out the locations of all the headquarters
for all the different contending candidates and I wonVl make a chart
of where they were, the phone numbers and so forth. What I did was,
I found out the location of the main Humphrey headquarters in Phila-
delphia, and T presented myself there as a volunteer.
Mr. Dash. Who did you speak to at that time ?
Mr. McMinoway. INIiss Gertrude Adcovitz who, T was informed,
was in charge of the volunt^^er workers.
Mr. Dash. Did you identify yourself with any particular name?
"What name did you use ?
Mr. McMinoway. In Philadelphia find throusfhout the campaign I
used the name Michael Snow with the Humphrey people and my own
name INIichael McMinoway with the McGovern people.
I
4487
Mr. Dash. How did you identify your occupation or work when
you spoke to the Humphrey campaign workers ?
]\Ir. McMiNOWAY. The Humphrey campaign people assumed I was
a salesman.
Mr. Dash. Did they assume it on the basis of representations you
made ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No ; I am not really sure how this particular — ^the
first time that I actually knew that they thought I was a salesman
was when I read an article in the Louisville Courier, yesterday, in
wliicli it said ]Miss Adcovitz referred to me as a salesman but I do not
recall using that modus.
Mr. Dash. Did you ever tell her that you were at least a business-
man who worked during the day and you could give them volimteer
work at night?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I worked day, night, nighttime and
throughout. It was never really asked, they were grateful that they
had a volunteer and they were not going to question
Mr. Dash. But in Wisconsin you represented yourself to be a volun-
teer interested in helping the Humphrey campaign ?
Mr. iVIcJMiNowAY. Yes, sir.
INIr. Dash. "Was your assignment the same in Philadelphia as it was
in Wisconsin ?
Mr. INIcMiNGWAY. Yes, sir, initially it was.
Mr. Dash. Did vou have the same type of reporting schedule with
Mr. Stone ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, up until midway through the Pennsyl-
vania or Philadelphia assignment, I would contmue to send in docu-
ments and so forth.
Mr. Dash. Your Philadelphia diary which you have identified as an
accurate record that you kept, indicates that you were put in
charge of the phone bank and block captain programs, what were these
programs ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Initially, the Humphrey headquarters in Phila-
delphia had set up a phone bank headquarters separate from the main
headquarters. It was a building, 2-, .3-story building. On the second
floor there were 20 phones, they had opei'ators at these phones and they
used a system that Mayor Rizzo initiated in his successful candidacy
for the mayor of Philadelphia, whereby they would take cross-index
cards of streets or blocks as they referred to them and he would call
all the people on the respective blocks until they found a worker that
would volunteer to be a block captain and represent the Humphrey
people in that area. The purpose of this was to have an outlet for
their literature and their campaign propaganda and to help get out
the vote on election day and so forth.
Mr. Dash. And you were put in charge of that phone bank opera-
tion as supervisor?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I was assigned to help supervise it. I was not
put in charge but
Mr. Dash. Now, after you had that assignment of supervisor you
began to sort of mess up the program, did you not ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I did not help the situation any.
Mr. Dash. Let me just read on April 11 in your Philadelphia diary,
down toward the bottom you wrote, "I promptly put people on calling
4488
and duplicating cards that had been done by the day shift." In other
words, there was a day shift that called people to become block
captains and you had people call the same people in the evening?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. They had stacks of cards similar to
3-by-5 index cards, and previous to the time I came o\-er there the
thing was not working very successfully, but I just stopped after
that day — the cards that were there the day I came were the ones
that were there the day I left. I never went to the stockroom to get
new supplies of cards.
Mr. Dash. But look at April 12, it does not show a passive act.
You wrote on April 12: "I rearranged the cards again, that night
shifts would recall a lot of day shift cards." I take it that is an accu-
rate statement of what you did I
Mr. McMiNOWAY. That is the way I read it, sir.
Mr. Dash. Now, the impact and the effect of this repetitive callmg
you reflect in your diary on April 14, and you write :
Repetition of calls is starting to aggravate the volunteer block captains. The
captains are getting called two or three times and it is beginning to bother
them. Some captains have already quit because of the repeated calls.
So this repetition did have a disruptive effect in getting block
captains?
Mr. Minoway. Do you want me to answer that ?
Mr. Dash. Yes.
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Again on April 20 you state that, "We put some lists
on the phone tables that had already been called so that repeat calls
will be made tonight," so this was continued again.
Actually, this caused quite a bit of trouble for Mr. Plumphrey be-
cause-— do you not indicate on April 11 that Mr. "Humphrey was spend-
ing one-third of his budget on the phone bank and literature packets
that the block captains would distribute ?
Mr. McMixowAY. This is the information that the Humphrey peo-
ple had given me.
Mr. Dash. So that causing this disruption, in terms of repeated
calls and getting block captains to be annoyed and some quitting, was
taking quite a bite out of the expense that Mr. Humphrey had allotted
for the use of the phone banks. Is that true ?
Mr, ]McMixowAY. Yes, sir, it was.
Mr. Dash. On April 22 you wrote that you yourself called people
out of the Humphrev headquarters and urged them to vote for Jackson.
You did do that?
;Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. That was 3 days right before the primary election. This
is more than intelligence gathering, is it not ?
Mr. ]SIc]MixowAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Your diar^' also indicates that you played a role in hiring
pei"Sons for the phone bank in a later operation. '\Aniat did you mean
on April 18 in your diary when you state 'T really lined up some
winners." "What did you mean by winners?
Mr. McMixowAY. Evidently these people were of low caliber
qualifications.
Mr. Dash. Winners for vou. losers for them, rigrht?
4489
Mr. ^Ic^IiNOWAY. Possibly.
Mr. Dash. On April 19 you wrote in your diary that :
Went to the phone bank and checked on my workers as they were waiting for
me at the door. I got them to separate the union and Negro cards into uneven
rationed stacks. The 60 people lined up yesterday did not show up for work, only
24 came. The cards were so placed that anyone calling them could not distinguish
between a Negro call sheet or a union call sheet. The call sheet is the speech
read to the person called.
So as a result of that, I take it that some union people re^ieived a
call that was directed to black voters and a black voter received a call
directed to a union member?
]Mr. McMixowAY. In some instances.
Mr. Dash. I think you also were able, with all this, to win quite a
bit of confidence in the Philadelphia headquarters.
Mr. :Mc]Minoway. Yes, sir. The jobs that I did with :Miss Adcovitz
and with the other staff members were always carried out to the best
of my ability to be successful for the Humphrey candidacy, anything
that i did that they specifically instructed me to do was done correctly.
Mr. Dash. I take it, from what we have just referred to on the
phone bank, some of these things were not done to carry out the
Humphrey activities successfully ?
Mr. ]Mc^IiNOWAY. To put the situation into context, the phone bank
situation was a mess when I got there. There was no proper superWsion
by the Humphrey staff conducted in that area. They spent a lot of
money paying the expenses of the phone bank but they spent very
little time supervising it and no real direct orders Avere given to the
people working there as to the proper way of carrying it out. The
phone bank system was new to me when I got there. I did use this
opportunity to learn about it and so that in the future I would under-
stand what this type of a setup was with the block captain.
Mr. Dash. Whatever bad situation it was, you took advantage of
that also to keep it that way.
]SIr. McMixowAY. I didn't take advantage of it to keep it that way,
sir. It was just my intention from the outset not to do anything that
would really jeopardize my position or uncover my
Mr. Dash. If you were a true volunteer, really tr\'ing to help the
Humphrey activity and you would have seen the fact that these vari-
ous calls had been made, you would not have arranged cards to have
people called again and yon would not have permitted a situation
where the cards would have been so disarraj'ed that black voters would
get union messages and union voters would get back citizens
messages.
Mr. IMcMiNowAY. I think that is obvious.
Mr. Dash. All right. Now, in fact you were really so successful in
winning the confidence of those you were working with that in your
diary on April 13 you will note that you wrote :
I went over to the Adelphia Hotel where I met ex-Mayor Jim Tate. He is so
thankful I am helping at the phone bank. He invited me to a big party election
night. He told me they were depending on me to get the sample ballots dis-
tributed to block captains.
That was quite a commendation on your role.
At that time, by the way, I take it you did not inform ex-Mayor
Tate what your real identity was ?
4490
Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir.
Mr. Dash. You accepted this compliment as a volunteer for Mr.
Humphrey.
Look at April 20, where you say that, "After lunch Sam Parelman,
national coordinator from Washington came by and talked to me
about working in California. Parelman called Joe" is it "Cerrell" ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes.
Mr. Dash [continues reading] :
Joe Cerrell the L.A. Chairman for me and told him I would work in L.A.
headquarters. Mike Polin sent L.A. headquarters a big letter introducing me
as "an avid Humphrey supporter that could be trusted in any project."
I think your crowning victory in terms of gaining confidence, you
report in your Philadelphia report which I think is on tab 5 [exhibit
No. 234] where you indicate that after your infiltration of the Hum-
phrey headquarters by complimenting the elderly office manager,
Gertrude Adcovitz you were a dedicated Humphrey supporter.
Once I gained her confidence by working on menial projects, I was liome free.
It has continued to amaze me how far you can go inside headquarters by just
walking in off the street. Gertrude told me one night while we were working
late on our separate goals that "Once in every campaign a great worker walks
in off the street and really helps in the campaign."
And she was referring to you ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. That is in the report ; yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Right. Then you add the interesting comment, "I often
wonder how many great workers were also serving a dual role."
Now did you also cause some confusion in the mailing to block
captains ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Specifically what are you referring to, the
stamping?
Mr. Dash. Let me refer you to April 20, where you say that "The
mailing today" — second page of the April 20 diary entry, "The mail-
ing today was successful. The block captains will receive the mailing
Monday that should go to ward leaders."
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir; I would like to point out that in the
diary it mentions Mike Polin, who was also — he was in fact a delegate
to the national convention for the Plumphrey canipaign. He was the
titled supervisor of the headquarters. In other words he was the one
officially in charge of this headquarters and he is the one who conducted
the distribution of those sample ballots and so forth, and unfortunately
for him, with no political experience he did not know the difference
in the vertical and horizontal voting machine on the sample ballots.
Mr. Dash. Did you know them ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. Dash. You took no steps, of course, to correct it?
Mr. INIcMiNOWAY. No, sir.
Mr. Dash. And therefore when you said "The mailing today is suc-
cessful," this is again successful for you but not very successful for
them ?
Mr. McMtnoway. I am not sure on this particular instance whether
I was referring to the fact that it was successful from my standpoint
that it was not done correctly or
Mr. Dash. Look at
4491
Mr. McMiNOWAY [continuing]. Or in fact all the mailing did in
fact go out.
Mr. Dash. The sentence that follows says : "The block captains will
receive the mailing today that should go to the ward leaders."
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Again a separate sentence. I unfortunately can't
remember things explicitly. Some of the details you asked me about
I remember as definite uncooperative activity but not this particular
incident.
Mr. Dash. All right. Now, finally before you left Philadelphia you
did see to it that some needed workers that were supposed to work at
Humphrey headquarters a day or two before the primary election
never went there. Look at your diary entry of April 22, where you state
that — the last part of the entry : "The phone bank workers were sup-
posed to help tomorrow and Monday at Adelphia" which I take it is
the headquarters ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash [continues reading] . "And I told them we would not need
I them because the phone bank is closed today.'' That meant those partic-
ular Avorkers, which "was just prior to the primary election, wei-e not
available on the day they were needed.
]Mr. INIcMixoAVAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Now, while you were working inside the Humphrey head-
I quarters, did you learn of a person named Mr. Zimmer?
Mr. ]McMixowAY. In the Humphrey headquarters?
]Mr. Dash. AVorking either in ^NIcGovern headquarters or any of the
other Democratic candidates' headquarters. Did you know of a pereon
by the name of Mr. Zimmer?
Mr. ]\IcMiNowAY. Xo, sir, I don't believe so.
Mr. Dash. Did you learn while working in the Humphrey headquar-
Iters of any heckling Mr. Humphrey experienced in his appearances in
Philadelphia?
Mr. ^NIcMixowAY. Practically every time i\Ir. Humphrey appeared,
especially before any youth or younger oi'ganizations or groups he was
heckled and protests took place, and oftentimes objects were thrown
; at him.
INIr. Dash. Did you know of a Mr. Donald Segretti ?
ISIi'. McMixow^vY. Xo, sir, I did not.
]Mr. Dasit. Were you awai-e there was a Segretti operative named
Zimmer in Philadelpliia ? We had read into the record through j\Ir.
■ Segretti, a statement that he had called ]Mr. Humphrey's headquar-
I ters representing himself to be a reporter and blaming the Muskie
j people for the hecklers and the disrupters.
Did you know that Humphrey believed, or did you have any infor-
mation that you received that the Humphrey workers believed that
some of the Democratic candidates were actually creating this trouble
foi' them ?
Mr. ^NIcMixowAY. Yes, sir. I know in fact that some of the Demo-
crats, as I testified to earlier, some of the other Democrats were in
fact sabotaging Democrat campaigns.
^Ir. Dash. Did you know, in fact there were some agents actually
hired by a Republican worker, ]Mr. Segretti, who was creating some
of this heckling for Mr. Humphrey ?
4492
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir; I did not hear that until I heard of it
before this committee.
Mr. Dash. After the Pennsylvania primary election were you in-
structed to infiltrate the McGovern campaign in Los Angeles for the
California primaiy by Mr. Stone or Rainer?
Mr. ]\Ic]NriNowAY. No, sir, I was specifically instructed to follow up
my contact with the Humphrey people and go to Los Angeles and work
with Humphrey people, although while I was in California I ran into
a lot of the people. I stayed in Santa Monica and there was a head-
quailei's right down the street fi'om my hotel.
INIr. Dash. So you were in the Humphrey headquarters but you were
also
Mr. ]McMixowAY. In contact with McGovern people.
Mr. Dasii. I think you told us earlier while in California you used
two names, your own name, Michael ]Mc]Minoway, and Michael Snow.
In the California campaign were you registered in the hotel under
both names ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir. In Wisconsin after I became successful
in infiltrating the McGovern and Humphrey headquarters it was nec-
essary I register in a hotel by both names.
Mr. Dash. So I take it if Humphrey people wanted to call Michael
Snow and the McGovern people, if they wanted to get Michael !Mc-
Mirioway, they would get you and that was you ?
Mr. ]\Ic]MixowAY. Yes, sir ; those two names appeared on the regis-
tration, right.
Mr. Dash. Was your assignment again the same in Los Angeles as
in the Milwaukee activity and the Philadelphia activity ?
Mr. MclNIiNowAY. Basically it was.
Mr. Dash. Were you keeping up a regular reporting schedule with
Mr. Stone?
Mr. McMiNOw^\Y. Yes, sir. But this time we were on a daily phone
conversation system. The mailings and the written report system had
been dropped.
Mr. Dash. Did you become aware of an anti-Humphrey ]:)amphlet
showing him holding a big fish with the slogan, "A Fishy Smell for
the White House"? [Previously entered as committee exhibit No.
219 and appears in Book 10, p. 4299.1
Mr. ]\Ic]MiNOWAY. No, sir ; not until Monday morning wlien members
of this staff asked me about it.
Mr. Dash. I think when we asked you about it you said you were
aware there was an anti-Humphrey pamphlet, you saw it.
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir ; I knew of the pamphlet's existence, but
I did not know who had
Mr. Dash. I am not asking you whether you knew who had actually
instigated the pamphlet or produced it, but you knew about the pam-
phlet while working for Humphrey.
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. What was the Humphrey staff reaction to that pamphlet ?
Mr. MclMiNOw^w. Well, not only this pamphlet but other incidents
that took place in California. By the time of the California election it
had pretty well narrowed dowm to Humphrey versus McGovern and
it wasn't a very wide open field, just those two, and there was consid-
erable amounts of hard feelinsfs toward the other side.
4493
t Mr. Dash. Just speaking for the moment of the pamphlet before we
i^et to other matters, was there a feeling from the Humphrey people
;this was a INIcGovern trick 'l
Mr. IMdNIiNGWAY. Yes, I believe at that time they thought it had
been put out by the McGovern people.
Mr. Dash. I think you have indicated that you at least heard of this
from the testimony here and our committee has already received evi-
dence that this particular pamphlet was the work or product of ]\Ir.
Donald Segretti and his operatives who were working for a "White
House official, Mr. Chapin.
Did you observe any heckling that Mr. Humphrey had to go
through while in Los Angeles ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. Dash. Give us an example of that.
Mr. McMinoway. Probably the two best examples of campaign heck-
ling was on one occasion where there was a — I believe it was a $100-
fi-plate dinner at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles given to
raise campaign funds for the Humphrey group, and on this occasion
the Santa Monica McGovern youth workers massed into a little van
and drove down to the Beverly Hilton and marched up and down in
front of the hotel where the dinner was going to be held with the pur-
pose of trying to harass the guests for this dinner.
Another occasion, in fact, that I can remember where I was present,
was Humphrey and his wife were to — had a prearranged press, what I
jail a videotape commercial. They had called a bunch of press people
ivho were extremely favorable to them, and they had planned a series
Df tours through nursing homes and througliout the Los Angeles area,
and the idea was that Humphrey would go in and show his deep con-
cern for all the old people and the sick and the downtrodden and the
aewspaper people would, you know, take pictures of this, and use it
in news and then they also had Humphrey people taping these events
to use for a TV commercial they planned to use later in the campaign.
Mr. Dash. Did this cause bitterness among the workers and ^Slr.
Humphrey himself as to other members of the Democratic candidates'
staff?
Mr. McMiNowAY. There were times when Mr. Humphrey would
become slightly irritable. Mr. Humphrey, of all the Democratic candi-
dates that I worked for or with, or in association, or in the same orga-
nization, Humphrey could handle the hecklers and the demonstrators
much bettor than, say, ]Muskie or jNIcixOvern. Even INIcGovern, with
his youthful campaign strategy and all the youthful workers he had
around, he really could not handle, you know, the direct protest against
him.
Mr. Dash. This particular one you just told us about involving the
old people's appearance, did this affect Mr. Humphrey very much?
Mr. McMinoway. I think the major effect of this was that it dis-
rupted the schedule and it was not pei-missible for the cameras to film
it in quite as smooth a manner as they had hoped. With the disruptions
outside, the noise, it was impossible to have audio w^ith the video be-
cause of some of the obscene things that were said and the language
and the tones — especially the tone and attitude of the demonstrators.
Often in California, demonstrations that I noticed were more verbal
and had a more violent attitude than some of the earlier ones. The ones
4494 ;
directed against Muskie, for instance, that we mentioned in Milwau-i
kee were sim]:)ly efforts to just s)\oiit him down. But by the time that
I got to California, traveling with the campaign, the demonstrations
had become more personal and more deceit oriented. They were spe-
cifically directed at individuals and had slur-type remarks.
Mr. Dash. I think the committee already has received some evidence
from Mr. Segretti that his assignment to his operatives was to arrange
for hecklers against any one of the candidates who would appear, mak-
ing it appear like it is coming from one of the other candidates. Did
you know what the source of some of this heckling was ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir. The only sources of planned protest that^
I knew of were the ones that McGovern had planned against Muskie
in Wisconsin and against Humphrey in California.
Mr. Dash. Now, after the California primary, which was just prior
to the break-in at Watergate, when did you learn of the break-in and
where were you ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I returned from California and there was a period
of time after California when speculation, not only my own specula-
tion but speculation around the country, was that McGovern had man-
aged to obtain enough delgates to get the nomination. That was the
last primary State, and there was a period of about 2 weeks between
the time I came home from California until the next event on the cal-
endar of the year would take place, which was the Democratic Conven- 1
tion in Miami, and I went on a little rest and recreation to my favorite
fishing place in Kentucky and I was more or less camped out at the
lake. I first learned of the Watergate break-in upon my i-eturn home
when I picked up the local papers there in Louisville and read the
headlines that I
Mr. Dash. Did that cause you some concern when you read that ?
Mr. INIclMixowAY. Yes, sir, it caused me a great deal of concern.
Mr. Dash. Why?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Well, basically, because as I indicated earlier, I
had suspicioned that the MO of the operation I was undertaking was
at least, if not Republican initiated, it was at least in the same phi-
losophy and strategy of, at least, my Republican beliefs and that it was
not geared to help any Democrats but merely to observe their opera-
tions. When it was disclosed or when I read the newspapers and started
hearing the news that it was disclosed that some of the members of the
Watergate people, or the people that had been apprehended inside the
Watergate headquarters were affiliated with the Republican Party, it !
caused me to have suspicions that possibly not only did they an intelli-
gence-gathering operation, but possibly, they had other operations as
well.
Mr. Dash. What did you do after you became concerned ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. That particular evening — which was a Sunday
evening — I began to call the number that I had previously used to
contact Mr. Rainer in Washington.
Mr. Dash. What happened ? Were you able to contact him ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I was not. The phone had been discon-
nected. According to the operator, it was disconnected that very
morning.
Mr. Dash. Were you later able to contact him ?
4495
Mr. McMixowAY. I was not able to contact him, but 2 days later, he
contacted me. We had a conversation concerning my concern over
these suspicions.
Mr. Dash. As a result of those conversations, did you come to the
District of Columbia ?
INIr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. I was very reluctant to continue any of
the activities that I had, at least until I was sure myself that I could
investigate what was going on and find out — as I say, I was not aware
of all the details of the Watergate thing. I had been away for some
time. He instructed me that if I would come to Washington, he would
not — he assured me first, that I had not partaken of any illegal activi-
ties, nor was his group partaking of any. lie instructed me that if I
would come to Washington, he would arrange a meeting with me and
his boss so that his boss could, in fact, reaffirm his convictions that this
was legal.
Mr. Dash. Did you get such a reassurance ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. I came to Washington and received a
call in my hotel anonymously one night. The man identified himself
merely as INIr. ]\I, just for the matter of having something, a reference,
for me to contact, and he reassured me that the organization I was
working with was not involved in any illegal activities and. quite
strenuously, passed on to me the fact that they were not, in fact, con-
nected with the people that were apprehended.
Mr, Dash. My. MclNIinoway, I think what was striking to you and,
as you say, causing you some concern, was the break-in at the Demo-
cratic National Committee headquarters and, I take it, the placing of
bugs there. AYliat occurred, and I think this committee has already
received evidence of that, was that there was a surreptitious entry
into the headquarters and the placing of microphones in telephones.
Now, do you see much difference between, say, a secret entry into a
headquarters and the placing of microphones to hear information
and your own activity of entering a hoadquartei-s through a misrepre-
sentation and hearing and actually seeing activity? As a matter of
fact, were you not actually more effective than what was done in the
Democratic National Committee headquarters? You were a more
flexible receiver of information by sound and a much more flexible re-
ceiver of information by sight? Were you not, in a sense, a human bug
or a human camera infiltrating a Democratic headquartei-s?
Mr. McMinoway. Your question got rather lengthy, but to answer,
as I understand it, the main point of your questioning is, yes. I feel a
great deal of difference between what I did and the illegal acts of the
people that were caught inside the Democratic headquarters. To me,
there is a lot of difference in breaking the law and in breaking con-
fidence. I merely obtained information that was voluntarily given to
me. I did not twist anybody's arm, I never broke into any place, I never
bugged any pliones or used any kind of electronic surveillance at all.
The information I obtained was obtained because I was there at the
time. It was like the newspapers. Because they are ])resent at the hear-
ings and because they have so far been able to obtain information of
prehearing testimony, and so forth, I would not consider them spies
and I would not consider them doing anything illegal. That is their
job^to report. That was my job; to report on the activities of the
Democratic candidates.
4496
Mr. Dash. I am not suggesting; that any of tliese laws apply to you,
but by analogy of the law of theft, there is a law of larceny, which is I'
taking of property, and then the law of obtaining things by false
pretenses, in which you do not have to break into any place, but it is
the misplacing of confidence and a misrepresentation. Would you think [
that if Ave were to consider legislation, that just as in the theft law, i
where the various State legislatures and the Congress have felt that i
actually, theft of information or theft of property, is the same whether
one picks it up without the knowledge of an individual or whether one i
gets it by deceit and misrepresentation ?
jNIr. ]\Ic]MiNow^VY. One point I think needs to be brought out, at least
from my standpoint, is that you are putting a lot of emphasis on ob-
taining this information by misrepresentation. In fact, in 1972, that
was not really, in my opinion, the key to my being able to obtain this
information. It was not the fact that I misrepresented myself as a
Humphrey worker or that I misrepresented myself as a salesman or
any other misrepresentation. The reason I got the information was be-
cause I was there. The reason I was there is because I was a good pre-
cinct campaign worker.
JNIr. Dash. Let us put it this way. If you had gone into the Humphrey
headquarters in Philadelphia, the Muskie headquarters in Wisconsin,
the Humphrey headquarters in Los Angeles, and truly identified your-
self as who you were, do you think you would have been allowed to
work in that headquarters ?
Mr. INIcMixowAY. I would assume not. but I never used methods of
misrepi-esentation or lying. They never asked me.
Mr. Dash. You indicated you wanted to be a volunteer for Hum-
phrey. Was that a true statement ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, I did, in fact, volunteer and I did con-
siderable work.
Mr. Dash. You were following instructions, you had an assignment,
you were being paid by somebody else to do that. You were not a volun-
teer. You were paid at least the amount you have indicated?
Mr. McMiNowAY. I was paid to do surveillance and intelligence
work, but I was a volunteer in that particular headquarters. They were
not paying me. I received no money or compensation.
Mr. Dash. You were paid to be somebody else's volunteer, right?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir,
Mr. Dash. After you were reassin-ed that you weren't doing any-
thing wrong, you did work in the McGovern headquarters in the Dis-
trict of Columbia for a while ?
]Mr. McMtnoway. Yes, sir. I was called to Washington, as I say, pri-
marily for the conversation between the unknown person and myself
and the reaffiiTnation that I would not be involved in any illegal activi-
ties. There was a period of about 9 days before the convention started.
One of the results of the convei-sation I had with the gentleman in
Washington was that the plans had already been previously made for
me to go from California to Miami and as I understand it, the reser-
vations at the hotels were made and the general pattern of the events
was already established.
Mr. Dash. And did you go on to the Miami convention ?
Mr. McMtnoway. Yes, and therefore, I did agree to continue that
one last assignment. But when I went to Florida, it was with the
stipulation that that would be my last assignment.
4497
Mr. Dash. All riojht. You did ^o on to the Miami convention and
what position did you obtain in the McGovern camp in the Miami
convention ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. I eventually became a member of the security stafi
in McGovern headquai-ters.
Mr. Dash. Very briefly, what did that permit you to do?
How did you get that position, by the way ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Initially, I followed, as I say, the same procedura
I was in Florida about 5 days before the convention. I used this time
to amass information on where different delegations were staying,
where different headquarters were, the locations, and so forth. This in-
formation I did not receive from Mr. Rainer. I had to dig this infor-
mation out myself.
After I found out the location of the McGovern headquarters in — in
Washington, while I w^as w^orking, I met quite a few people on the
administrative staff' of the McGovern headquarters and I did work in
the Washington McGovern national headquarters. It was just a transi-
tion physically from here to Florida and I just took up the same type of
activities. By this time I had become a familiar face.
Mr. Dash. Actually, how important a security post did you have?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I don't know how important you — when you say
"important"
Mr. Dash. Well, where were you stationed ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Throughout the Doral Hotel.
Mr. Dash. Were you also stationed up on the 16th floor, where per-
sons had to appear it' they w^anted to go up on the 17th floor, w^here Mr.
McGovern had a suite ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I was on the 16th floor — this is, I believe, a mis-
understanding through the press and maybe through some of the
earlier conferences that we have had. I was stationed on one occasion
on the 16th floor, but primarily, I Avas stationed on the I7th floor,
wdiere McGovern 's suite of rooms and the situation room and JSIr.
Mankiewicz' room and Mr. Hart's room and most of the top-level
staff people were stationed.
Mr. Dash. Look at your — I think it is tab 8 [exhibit No. 237], in
which apparently you had, at least according to your own statement,
quite a bit of control. You stated :
Once I was on the staff. I had even a better chance to go throughout the
building. For three nights, T was a guard on the penthouse floor —
Which I take it is the 17th floor —
that McGovern was staying on. I had complete control over who was allowed
on the floor and how long they stayetl. The Secret Service men assigned to
McGovern cooperated with me and if I said someone could not come on the
floor, then they were not allowed on the floor. And I obtained a list of everyone
on McGovern's staff and what he did. I got copies of Secret Service clearance
list and I had access to all McGovern's convention operations rooms.
Is that correct ? That is in your report ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. That is correct to the extent that I did
not have total, complete control of who came on that floor. I could
certainly hold up the people. The Secret Service's instructions were
they were primarily concerned with the physical safety of the can-
didate. They worked with us in cooperation with — we had a com-
mand post at the staircase entrance to the I7th floor. Wlien someone
would present himself at that door, thev would identify themselves,
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 9
4498
identify tlic person they wanted to speak to, and we would jjo tlirongh
the pi'ocedure of contacting: tliat ])Pi'3on and see if they would be per-
mitted on the floor. If I told a Secret Service man Mv. McGovern or
Mr. whoever on that floor does not want to see this particular individ-
ual, tlie Secret Service people were there ready and willing and able
to assist us in removino; the jjeople from the stairwell.
Mr. Dash. Also accordin<i: to your report, you indicated that you
had such access that yon actually spent ])art of an evenin<; in Senator
McGovern's suite, actually watching TV with him as he was watch-
ing the California delegate vote?
Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir. By the time of the California challenge
vote on Monday evening, I had become at least recognizable even by
the Senator himself. I had pi-^vious to this had several chats with
him in moments of passing in the hall and the different operations
rooms and so forth in the building.
]Mr. Dash. Actually, you comment toward the lx)ttom of your Flor-
ida report :
It is amaziiiR how easy it would be to be right in the midst of all the opera-
tions and planning and yet be an enemy.
Mr. MgIMixoway, That is in the statement.
Mr. Dasit. I take it you considered yourself an enemy, did you not?
Mr. McMixowAY. "Enemy" may not be tlie proper word. I def-
initely do not agree with the political philosophies of George
McGovern.
Mr, Dash. But you were there as an infiltrator and to gather in-
formation. Therefore, you were doing political espionage work, were
you not?
Mr. McMixow^AY. I was doing political intelligence gathering.
Mr. Dash. Did you have, by the way, as a result of this — did you
receive a McGovern staff button which you wore, "McGovern Staff
Convention '72-' ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, there were three types of staff buttons
initially designed to designate the different levels of staff importance
and at one time or other at the convention, I had all three different
buttons. These were given to me by McGovern staff people.
Mr. Dash. You had all three?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes.
Mr. Dash. By the way, the value of these staff buttons was just
not the button itself, but they also permitted you to gain access to
certain places, did they not?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, they did.
Mr. Dash. And the more restrictive the button, the higher the button
allowed you through places where the Secret Service people would ordi-
narily stop others. Is that not true ?
Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir; during my entire tenure with the Mc-
Govern security force in Florida, I was never challenged in any way
as to access to any particular party.
Mr. Dash. Now, you got this button only because you represented
yourself to be a volunteer for Mr. McGovern and were working on
his behalf. Is that not true ^.
Mr. McMixowAY. Xo, sir; I don't really agree with that. I got
the button because I was on the security staff. I don't think the mis-
representation is the reason they gave me the button. The reason
4499
they gave me the button was because I was assigned to that par-
ticular job. All of the Secret Service people that were assigned to
guard George McGovern were either American Party registrants or
Republican registrants. There was not a single Democrat on his whole
Secret Service force.
Mr. Dash. You wouldn't be a security man unless you had indicated
that you Avere an active worker for Mc(jovern, is that not true ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. If I had not been participating in the opera-
tions, I doubt seriously if they would have given me the button. I
know of no one in the Republican headquarters that would have them.
Mr. Dash. Let me just ask you, while you were working in Demo-
crat headquarters at the Miami convention, what, if anything, did you
observe or overhear concerning the employment of any women to in-
fluence delegates ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. There were instances that I remember of
women being present that were not explicitly staff people assigned to
secretarial or administrative duties in the hotel.
Mr. Dash. Is that all you remember?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir. There was a situation in the Doral Hotel
where there was a hospitality room set up for the delegates to come in
and be hospitable and drink and talk and discuss issues, or, you know,
just anything they wanted to do. On frequent occasions, I stopped by
this particular room primarily to see who was there, and on different
occasions, I noticed people that I would classify as prostitutes or
people with, at least if not prostitutes, they were at least people with
low moral standards.
Mr. Dash. Did you ever overhear any staff member suggest that
such prostitutes or people with low moral standards be used for in-
fluencing delegate votes ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir ; not in a policymaking type of conversa-
tion, I did not.
Mr. Dash. In any conversation ?
Mr. McMixowAY. Several people on the staff had talked about, not
necessarily the obtaining of any of these types of people, but they did
in fact, I am sure, know that these people existed in the building and
they never instructed us to remove these people from the building.
Mr. Dash. Did you, in fact, drive a delegate with women in a car,
a McGovem car ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir; I was instructed by a staff member who
I cannot recall specifically to use one of the transportation pool cars
to take a delegate from the Doral Hotel to the Playboy Plaza, which
is maybe a 15-minute drive up the road.
Mr. Dash. When I refer to a McGovern car, what kind of car was
it ? Was this leased to the campaign headquarters ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir; they had a whole fleet of cars that they
had rented to provide transportation for delegates to and from, to
provide staff in assisting people with transportation and access. As
you may recall, the Doral Hotel was directly adjacent to the Fon-
tainebleu Hotel where the national official Democratic headquarters
were and the convention was some 5 miles away and it was necessary
to have cars to use foi- transportation from the Doral to the Fontaine-
bleu to other deleo^ations' hotels and so forth.
4500
Mr. Dash. Your testimony is not that Senator McGovern was aware
of any of this kind of operation ?
Mr. McMixowAY. No, it is not.
Mr. Dash. The women that were in the car that you drove, are these
the kind of women that you were telling us about ji little while earlier,
who were either prostitutes or women of low morals ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. Definitely.
Mr. Dash. Who else was in the car with them ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. The delegate that I was assigned to drive to the
Playboy Plaza.
Mr. Dash. Just one final question at this time. In the course of your
assignment in Wisconsin. Pennsylvania, California, District of Co-
lumbia, and Miami, you did in fact, as you say, overtly misrepresent,
allow persons to believe that you were a volunteer working for the
particular candidate and did not inform these people that you were
a paid intelligence gatherer for somebody else you later believed to be
the Republican Party. Is that a true statement?
Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir, that is fairly accurate.
Mr. D.vsH. And as a result of your not informing these people of
that or actually allowing your true identity not to be known, you were
able to obtain valuable information and materials from these various
headquarters ?
Mr. McMixowAY. Not necessarily materials. I never removed ma-
terials or documents
Mr. Dash. Some of these materials were advance schedules; is that
correct ?
Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir; but I never, in the course of the activi-
ties, when you refer to materials, in relation to some of the previous
testimony given before this committee, I did not remove that type of
material with the intent of stealing or countermanding the materials.
The materials that I removed Avere materials that were printed up for
distribution and these materials would eventually be distributed to the
public.
Oftentimes, I would get them as soon as they were printed up and
they would not be distributed until maybe 2 or 3 days later.
Mr. Dash. You didn't remove the materials. It was information that
you read and became knowledgeable about that you were able to get
because of your infiltrated position and were able to convey that infor-
mation to Mr. Stone or Mr. Rainer. is that true ?
Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir. I did obtain important information, or I
felt it was important, that I passed along to Mr. Rainer.
Mr. Dash. And you did obtain such things as all these different types
of buttons that you mentioned ?
Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. Dash. I have no further questions at this time.
Senator Ervix. Senator Thompson.
Senator Raker. Wait a minute. Mr. Chairman. He is not Senator
Thompson, Mr. Chairman, and I get wary of anybody who is called
that who comes from Tennessee.
Senator Ervix. I was inadvertent in thus demoting him and reduc-
ing him to a very lowly state. It was an act of inadvertence. I apologize
to him and recognize him for what he is, minority counsel. [Laughter.]
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman. I am placated and he is humiliated.
4501
Mr. Thompson. Anytime you want to make that mistake, Senator,
it is perfectly all right with me.
Mr. McMinoway, as I understand it, you didn't know that you
were being referred to as "Sedan Chair II'' ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Xo, sir; I wasn't using any code names per se.
These military SIA-type code names — I never used those during the
course of my employment.
Mr. Thompson. Did you have any contact with anyone in the Com-
mittee To Re-Elect besides Mr. Stone or Mr. Rainer.
Mr. McMiNowAY. Xo, sir; during the operations I did not. The
only other contact that was ever made to me was the initial call by
Martin Blackwell setting up the meeting with Mr. Rainer and the
telephone call in Washington.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Blackwell, I assume, did not explain to you
his true situation with regard to his connection with the Committee
To Re-Elect or any other organization?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. When you refer to •'true"' I do not know whether
it was true or not. He told me he really did not know, you know, the
specifics about this group or about the assignments, and to this point
it has not been made readily available to me whether Mr. Blackwell
was in fact a member of the Committee To Re-Elect.
Mr. Thompson. Did you ever have any contact, either directly or
indirectly, with anyone at the ^Miite House ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Xo, sir, I did not.
Mr. Thompson. Did you ever have any contact, either directly or
indirectly, with anyone in the Republican Xational Committee?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Xo, sir.
Mr. Thompson. "\"\lien you were working in Wisconsin, California,
Pennsylvania, or any other State, did you ever have any contact with
any local Republican leaders, to work with them on your project?
!Mr. McMiNOWAY. Only the ones that were working, there was quite
a bit in Wisconsin especially, they have no party registration-type
primary, it is not a straight line primary, and there was a lot of Re-
publicans working for Muskie and a lot of Republicans working for
Humphrey and McGovern and all the candidates because
Mr. Thompson. Those were not covert operations?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Xo. sir. they were not planned activities.
Mr. Thompson. All right. As you went around from campaign to
campaign, did you have anv overall game plan as to what candidates
you were trying to help, what candidates you were trying to hurt, or
were you just gathering intelligence ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I was simply gathering intelligence on all of them.
I was not purposely planning to hurt or help anyone.
^Ir. Thompson. Did you ever have any discussion with Mr. Stone or
anyone else to the effect that it would be better for the President if a
certain candidate won or if a certain candidate lost in a Democratic
primary ?
Mr. McMiNOAVAY. Xo, sir.
Mr. Thompson. You mentioned several instances of things, of course,
some that you did and some other things that you observed, the March
27 instance that you related where the McGovern Avorkers heckled
Mr. Muskie. you went into a little more detail in the staff interview, I
believe, with regard to that. How effective was that, in your opinion,
was it disruptive or what was the situation ?
4502
INIr. McMiNowAY. It was very disruptive, sir. What happened is it
was a ])lamied. ]:)roplanned speech by Miiskie at UWM. 1 think his
phinned topic of speecli was on the Vietnam war. and the protesters' — •
tlie INIcGovern people at least — <rame plan in this particular operation
as it was explained to me by the McGovern youth was to go to the thing;
and holler and scream and catcall and shout — in some instances as I
mentioned later on — especially obscenities were used but basically, just
to shout and heckle and cause as much noise as you could to possibly
oven-ide the audio part of the INIuskie appearance, and it was ex-
tremely effective. As I mentioned before. ^Ir. Muskie was extremely
vulnerable to heckling and harassment by the crowds. He did not
handle himself well at all.
Mr. Thompson. Was he able to finish his speech on this occasion ?
^Ir. ]\[r]MixowAY. No, sir — he did finish his speech but it was not the
planned finish, I mean, he did not finish his preplanned ])roo:!'am.
Mr. TiioMPSox. Did you evei- obsei-ve in any of the headquarters that
you worked, mailino; lists that had been obtained from other can-
didacies or other headquarters ?
Mr. McIMixowAY. Yes, sir. It was fairly common practice to be in
the McGovern headquarters and find lists of staff people for Humphrey
or vice versa. Oftentimes
INIr. Thompson. What do you mean staff people ?
^Ir. McjSIinoway. Well, you know, precinct workers, ward chair-
men, and so forth, campaign workers, mailing lists.
Mr. Ttio:mpsox. Lists of those people that you referred to ?
Mr. Mc^NIixowAY. Right.
Mr. Thompson. All right. How do you know that they were lists of
the other candidates ?
Mr. Mc]Mtnoway. Sometimes you notice in, for instance, Milwau-
kee in the Muskie headquarters there was a list of 1968 campaign
workers for Humphrey and precinct people they were using to call
to solicit support for the Muskie organization. In California in Hum-
phrey headquartei's. one time there was a list on McGovern stationerv
of names and addresses and phone numbers that had evidently, in
my opinion, been compiled by McGovern people and then were being
used by Humphrey people for mailings and for direct mailing and
for direct phone calling.
^Ir. Thompson. Do vou know how the Humphrey people obtained
that list ? '
IVfr. Mc]\f iNowAY. No. sir, I do not know.
Mr. Thompson. All right.
Getting back to the convention, you state here in your notes rexhil)it
No. 287] that you had complete control over who was allowed on the
floor, that is, the penthouse floor. You get copies of Secret Service clear-
ance, had access to all McGovern convention operation rooms, you say :
I was in the room where Frank Mankiewicz slept and Gary Hart's room. T went
into the Senator's room several times —
Mr. McMiNOWAY. By invitation only, sir.
Mr. Thompson [continues reading:]
During the course of my security duties I met Pierre Salinger and the wife
of Henry Kimmelman and his wife and all the big time McGovern staff. On Mon-
day nigiit I watched television with McGovern while the California vote was
taken.
4503
Could you explain in a little more detail how it was that a, person
who in tlie beginning walked in off the street could get into a situation
where he actually watched the returns with the candidate? Did any-
one ever check you out or ask you any questions about who you worked
for previously, your political affiliations, your friends, references, any-
thing like that ?
Mr. McMixowAY. No; really, no one ever asked those specific ques-
tions. Part of the operation iii Florida was that there were question-
naires that were filled out, that I filled out with my own name, ad-
dress, et cetera, that the Secret Service used for a security check. 1
believe the extent of the check was to uncover alien forces or possible
hostile forces, because in 1972 one of the major candidates was shot,
and there was some concern for the physical safety of the candidate.
And as I mentioned before, in talking during my tenure of service on
the security staff with the Secret Service people that were there to
guard McGovern, I found none of them philosophically alined with
his beliefs.
Mr. Thompson. So far as you know, you were never checked out by
the McGovern people themselves ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I was never challenged at all.
Mr. TiioMPSOX. How much challenging would it have taken in order
for your true situation to have been discovered ?
iSIr. McMixowAY. Well, they could have read my name and address
and called the Jefferson County, Ky., county clerk's office and
checked voter registration and they would have found I was a regis-
tered Republican and then I am sure they would have gone — as usual
there is a procedure in some of these security check situations — con-
tacted eitlier the local autliorities or the local newspaper and found
out that I had previously been active in Republican politics.
Mr. Thompson. This was not just the McGovern campaign, either.
No one checked you out in the Humphrey campaign ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir. Throughout, as I mentioned before,
throughout the whole tenure from March until July, I was never
challenged and I was never in the position where I had to lie about
my true political philosophy.
Mr. Thompson. Let me ask you in a little bit more detail about
those girls that were at the Doral Hotel. [Laughter.]
You mentioned one time that you carried a delegate and two girls to
a certain place. Who instructed you, if you recall, to use the McGovern
car for that purpose ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. It was a staff member but I cannot be specific.
This is an instance where I recall the events but do not recall the
specifics of the events. I know I was instructed to do it. I did not
just voluntarily go out and get the car from the car pool and drive
him down there but I do not remember specifically who had instructed
me to do it.
Mr. Thompson. On that day when was the first time you had seen
that delegate?
Mr. MgJSIinoway. I was on security duty on the iTth floor. He came
to the stairwell entrance and asked to see a member of the staff.
]Mr. Thompson. Did he ask you ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes ; he asked me, I was
Mr. Thompson. Who did he ask to see ?
4504
^rr. AfcMiNOWAY. Gary Hart.
Mr. Thompson. Where was Mr. Hart ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. In his room.
Mr. TiiOMPSox. Where was his room?
Mr. JNIcMiNowAY. Two doors down on the light around the corner
of the stairwelL
Mr. TiioMPSOX. On the I7th floor ?
Mr. MclNIiNowAY. On the 17th floor.
iSIr. Thompson. All right. What did you do when he asked you
t liat ?
Mr. McMixowAY. Picked up the phone and called Mr. Hart's room
and asked him if he wanted to see this particular delegate, he said,
"send him on back."
Mr. Thompson. Did you send him on back?
Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. All right. What happened next?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. As I mentioned, someone came out and instructed
me to — 'by this time it was about 11 p.m., and my tenure of duty,
assigned duty to specifically that door, my relief man had come to that
position and I was still there and they asked me to go down and get
the car and wait for the delegate outside,
Mr Thompson. For that same delegate ?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir. Specifically for that delegate,
Mr. Thompson. Did he call him by name ?
Mr. McMinoway. He did at that time but I do not recall the name.
I know where he was from.
Mr. Thompson. All right. Let us stop there just for a minute. I am
not going to ask you that, if somebody else wants to he can. He is not
from Tennessee, I will say that.
Mr. McMinoway. No, sir, it is not from our State. [Laughter.]
Mr. TiioisipsoN. Who would have been in position of authority to
give you an order like that, to pick up a car and carry anybody any-
where ?
Mr. ]\IcMinoway. Almost anybody on the administrative staff.
Mr. Thompson. On the administrative staff?
Mr. McMinoway. Tlie ])olicy, the upper echelon level of staff.
Decisionmaking people, the Harts, the Mankiew^czes, people of that
caliber, Anthony Borash, for instance.
Mr. Thompson. Well, tliere would be more than that, I assume.
You ai'e not saying that either of these men so far as you specifically
remember
Ml-. McMinoway. I am not specifically singling these gentlemen
out, sir.
Mr. Thompson. All right. But how many people would there be on
the policymaking staff who would
Ml". McMinoway. Piactically anyone who was in residence on the
17th floor would have been in that capacity, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Was this instruction given to you by someone in
residence on the l7th floor, to the best of your memory ?
Mr. McMinoway. It was definitely by someone w^ho had access to
that floor, liberal access to tliat floor.
Mr. Thompson. All right. Tf it was someone whose job it was to
carry coffee around to people who asked you to do that, you would have
responded to that ?
4505
Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir.
Mr. Thompson. All right. You say you were given instructions to
get one of the cars that the McGovern people used, did you get the car ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. All right. What did you do after you got the car 2
Mr. McMiNowAY. Pulled to the front of the Doral Hotel.
Mr. Thompson. All right. What happened then ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. The delegate was standing there.
Mr. Thompson. Was he with someone ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes ; he was with two ladies, two women.
Mr. Thompson. Did anything happen after they got into the car to
indicate to you that they were not ladies but women? [Laughter.]
Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. I am not going to go any further on that one,
either. [Laughter.]
W^ere all three of them in the back seat of the car ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, they were.
Mr. Thompson. Where did you take them ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Playboy Plaza.
Mr. Thompson. Did you ever hear anyone in a policymaking posi-
tion discuss generally the utilization of women like this ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Did anyone ever state that a girl ought to be sent
somewhere or something to that effect ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir.
Mr. Thompson. All right. Sir, I have no further questions. Thank
you.
Senator Er\^n. Let me confess that I admire your dexterity and
versatility.
Now, by deceiving the supporters of Senator Muskie you infiltrated
his organization in Wisconsin ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Muskie, I worked in the Muskie headquarters in
Wisconsin.
Senator Ervin. But my question was, by practicing deception as to
your identity and purpose vou infiltrated the organization of Senator
Muskie in Wisconsin, and did everything that you possibly could think
of to confuse and disrupt his campaign ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I did not. With Muskie there were no
examples of any disruptive activities on my part against Muskie's can-
didacy.
Senator Er\^n. What exactly did you do in the Muskie head-
quarters?
Mr. IVIcMixowAY. Worked as hard as I could to carry out any tasks
which they assigned me.
Senator ER^^N. Did you do that in good faith ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes. sir, I was at this point, trying my best to be
the best volunteer worker they had in the organization.
Senator ER^^N. And you were getting paid indirectlv from the
Republican Committee To Ee-Elect the President for so doing?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I was getting paid by them to gather the
information.
Senator Ervin. By whom ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. By Mr. Rainer.
Senator Ervin. Well, who was he getting money from ?
4506
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I don't really know where he was getting it from.
There has been testimony before this committee that he was getting
it from Mr. Porter.
Senator Ervin. Then you were doublecrossing the Republicans?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. In other words, you were taking money from them
and working to the best of your ability in behalf of the candidacy
of Senator Muskie ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. It was merely a primary campaign, and this was
my instructions to work in these headquarters. I was not instructed to
disrupt the headquarters of the campaign.
Senator Ervin. You were instructed by a Republican politician and
paid by him to go into the Muskie headquarters and work the best you
could for the success of the Muskie campaign, is that what you are
telling us?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. That is, yes, sir ; that is what they were telling me
to do so I would be in position to obtain the information which they
wished me to pass back to them.
Senator Ervin. What did you do with the information you got ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Passed it along to Mr. Rainer.
Senator Ervin. Who was he working for ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. As I stated before, I didn't know who he was
working for.
Senator Ervin. So you were a double agent there ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No.
Senator Ervin. You heard talk about double agents. You were work-
ing in good faith for the Muskie campaign while drawing pay and
receiving instructions and delivering information about the Muskie
campaign to somebody that you knew was working for the Republican
Party.
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I was not a double agent. I was undertaking two
separate activities, one of gathering information and one
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. McMiNOWAY [continuing]. And one of working in the head-
quarters.
Senator Ervin. Well, you were trying to run with the fox and hunt
with the hounds.
Now then, you went to the Humphrey headquarters or rather you
went to the Humphrey organizations in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and
California — California also ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Philadelphia and California.
Senator Ervin. Yes. Three different States, and you represented to
them that you were a strong supporter of Senator Humphrey's
candidacy for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency and you
would like to work for them for nothing to further that candidacy.
Mr. MclSIiNowAY. Senator, I think you are dramatizing a little
more than I had to. I merely presented myself as a volunteer and they
were damned glad to get t volunteer.
Senator Ervin. Yes. But you volunteered to work in behalf of his
candidacy ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. And I did. Senator.
Senator Ervin. But at the same time you were doing all you could
to make confusion more confounded and were taking information you
4507
got and turning it over to the man that was actually paying you for
infiltrating his organization.
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I did not do — specifically do things to disrupt
with that in mind. My objective was to work within an organization,
to gain their confidence and to therefore be able to be in a position
where I could personally observe and find out the information that I
felt important to the organization and its structure.
Senator Ervin. Well, are you testifying upon your oath that you
were attempting in good faith to promote the candidacy of Senator
Humphrey for the Democratic nomination for the Office of President.
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I personally was not promoting his candidacy
but I did in fact work for liis organization.
Senator Ervin. How did you happen to infiltrate his organization,
at whose instance?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Pardon ?
Senator Ervin. At whose instance did you infiltrate the organiza-
tions of Senator Plumphrey ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Mr. Rainer.
Senator Ervin. In Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and California?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Mr. Rainer.
Senator ERvaN. And he paid you for it?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir.
Senator Er\t:n. And you know that he was not supporting the
candidacy of Senator Humphrey ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I don't believe he was.
Senator- Ervin. And you were sneaking information out of the
offices of the McGovem campaign to your employer?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I wasn't sneaking anything in or out. I
physically walked in and out and I never snuck around anywhere.
Senator Ervin. Well, you walked in and oiit^ — you walked out, you
went in without information, and you came out with information and
you .Tave it to your employer, didn't you ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir.
Senator ER^^N. So you were practicing deceit on the supporters of
Senator Humphrey.
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I guess it is a matter of semantics, I don't think
it was a matter of deceit.
Senator Ervin. And you were actually working for your employer
and pretending to be working in the interests of Senator Humphrey ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I did work in the interests of Senator Humphrey.
Senator Ervin. Do you think you were working in his interests
when you were walking out with information about his plans and
giving it to his political of)ponents. Do you actually think that, Mr.
McMinoway ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I don't think that it helped him for me
to obtain the information but I think my activities during the time
I was gaining this information helped him a great deal.
Senator Ervtn, I want to ask you a very simple question: You,
whether you call it sneakinq; or something else, you were actually in-
filtrating the Humphrey organization for the purpose of acquiring
information concerning his activities and for the purpose of giving
that information to his political opponents, isn't that so?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. In 1972, Senator
4508
Senator Ervtn. Wait a minute, answer that question, you can answer
it yes or no and then explain.
Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir. In 1972, I did not know that the people
I worked for were Eepublicans, Democrats, atheists, Conununists, or
what — I was merely assigned to gather political information about
organizations and structure of campaign activities.
Senator Ervin. Well, you were doing that merely to expand the
intellectual horizons of your employer ?
Mr. McMixowAY. Would you repeat that question again ?
Senator Ervhst. I was asking you whether you were infiltrating
these organizations of these peo])le seeking the Democratic nomination
and taking compensation from some outsiders for so doing merely for
the purpose of expanding the intellectual horizons of these outsiders
who were ])aying you to do these things.
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I believe they were very interested in this in-
formation. Wliat they did with it I am not sure.
Senator Er\t:n. You don't have any idea what their political af-
filiations were or what their jnirposes w^re, do you ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, not at that time, I did not.
Senator Ervin. Well, when did you discover that ?
Mr. ^IcMixowAY. This conmiittee helped to enlighten me toward
that afterward.
Senator Ervix. Didn't you begin to suspect that there was some-
body other than the well-wishers of Senators Humphrey and ]Mc-
Govern and Muskie that you were working for ?
Mr. M('MixowAY. The terminology used was not other than well-
wishers. I felt that it was people who were interested in their activities
so that they may possibly strengthen their own political
Senator Ervix. If you thought they were honestly interested in their
activities, why didn't you suggest to them they come down and talk
to the people supporting the candidacies in good faith of these
persons
Mr. McMixowAY. Because probably they would have gotten no
information of the type that I was able to obtain.
Senator Ervix. Well, you had to get it by what you call intelligence.
Mr. ^Ic^NIixowAY. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervix. Now, you seem to abhor the use of the Avords political
espionage, will you explain to a simple-minded man like myself the
exact dift'erence between political intelligence as practiced by you
aud political espionage?
Mr. McMixowAY. In my opinion intelligence gathering is the ob-
taining of information, primarily structural information and factual
information. Espionage to me is with the explicit intent of destroving
or disrupting something or purposely trying to damage something.
Senator Ervix. Well, were you gathering your information for the
])urpose of assisting and promoting and elevating and furthering the
campaigns of Senators Muskie and Humphrey and McGovern?
Mr. McMixowAY. No, sir.
Senator Ervix. What were you getting it for?
Mr. ]Mr]\riNowAY. For my employers who wished to know the struc-
tural organization of the candidates.
Senator Ervix. Well, did you get nothing except the structural or-
ganization information, is that the only thing?
4509
Mr. McMixowAY. Basically that Avas the type of information,
cateoorizod information I got, personnel files, types of people, sched-
ules, and so forth.
Senator Ervin. Were you engaged merely in getting information
about the structural organization of the Humphrey forces in
Philadelphia ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Xo, sir.
Senator Ervix. Allien you mixed up the cards relating to the blacks
and those relating to union people ?
Mr. McMiKowAY. Xo, sir.
Senatoi- Ervix. What Mere you doing, then ?
Mr. McMixoWAY. I was
Senator Ervix. Why were you doing it ?
Mr. McMixowAY. In reference to the cards?
Senator Eraix. Yes.
Mr. McMiNOw^VY. In reference to the cards, it was just an attempt
on my part not to volunteer any information or any assistance that I
felt would be helping out the situation. This Avas not my instructions
to disrupt Humphrey's candidacy.
Senator Ervix\ When you mixed up the cards so that the wrong
people would get the wrong messages, what were you doing that for?
Mr. McMiNowAY. I think you misinterpret the wording of the diary
statement when you say — in the diary it merely says rearranging, and
so forth. That does not mean
Senator Ervix. You were not mixing things up, you were just
rearranging?
Mr. McMix'owAY. Senator, I am not trying to be funny.
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, just a minute, I don't want to in-
terrupt your chain of thought but Ave are getting into a situation AA'here
we are having, I think, unseemly and unAvarranted audience response,
and I think we are getting to the place Avhere I can't understand the
full import of the Avitness' ansAver. I seldom do this, but I Avould re-
spectfully request Ave restore some sort of order to these proceedings.
Senator Era'ix'^. I am going to request the audience not to demonstrate
any reaction on their part to anything that occurs here. You are here
as guests of the committee and as guests of the Senate, and I ask you to
conduct yourself quietly as such.
Now, you say you promptly put people— this is about your activities
in Philadelphia, "I promptly put T^eonle in calling and duplicating
cards that had been done by the day shift."
Wliy did you do that ?
Mr. McMixowAY. To keep them busy.
Senator ER\^N. You Avere just acting on the assumption that an idle
brain is a devil's Avorkshop, so you Avanted to get their brains all stirred
up doing confusing things ?
Mr. McMiNOAVAY. Do you Avant me to ansAver that?
Senator Ervix. Yes, I Avould like to haA'e it ansAvered.
Mr. McMixowAY. No, sir, I Avas not trying to keep the devil from
having idle hands to Avork Avith ; no.
Senator ERA^x. Well, you Avere trving to .<ret him to haA^e some over-
worked hands to confuse things, Averen't you ?
Mr. McMixoAVAY. No. The particular people Avho w^ere involved in
this organization Avere the type of people that needed to stay busy, that
might keep them out of some other trouble.
4510
Senator Ervix. Oh, yes. In other -words, you were engaged in the
right useful act of finding what you considered honorable labor for
otTier people to do. Is that what you are telling this committee on
your oath ?
Mr. McMixowAY. I am not trying to get into a philosophical moti-
vation behind whether I told them to do it to confuse them, to keep
them busy or saving them from the Lord. I am not an evangelist.
Senator Ervix. I was not impressed with the fact that you were an
evangelist but I am glad to have you corroborate my reaction in one
respect at least.
You say that when the McGovern forces went down to Florida that
you went along as a secret service man ?
Mr. McJNIixowAY. No, sir.
Senator Ervix. What were you doing down there ?
Mr. MrMixo-\vAY. I went along, I had worked in the Washington
headquarter for McGovern, and practically, I would estimate that, 99
percent of the whole stafl', volunteers and all, went to Florida.
Senator Ervix. Well, you went along, didn't you ?
Mr. ]M(']Mix-owAY. I didn't go with them but I went to the same place
they were going.
Senator Ervix. Well, did you travel from Washington to Miami ?
INIi-. M(]MixowAY. Washington to Louisville and then to Miami.
Senator FIrvix. Yes. Didn't you tell this committee when you got to
Miami you worked with wdiat you called the secret service for Mc-
Govei-n ?
Mr. ISIcMixowAY. No, sir; I was on ^NIcGovern's personal security
organization staff. Secret Service operatives assigned by the L^.S. Gov-
ernment were assigned by the President of the United States to guard
McGovern 's personal body.
Senator Ervix. Is it the staff on which you worked that you said
virtually all of the members of it were supporting Wallace ?
i\Ir. ]Mc]\IixowAY. Xo, sir, not the staff I worked on. The staff of the
Secret Service agents supplied by the Government, in their conversa-
tions with me, had expressed the philosophy that they did not agree
with McGovern and that they were American Party advocates.
Senator Ervix. You said you didn't agree with Senator ]McGovern's
philosophy.
]\Ir. Mc^IixoAVAY. I certainly didn't.
Senator Ervix. Why did you ])retend to be working for his further-
ance ?
Mr. jNIcIMix'oway. Because that was one of the assets of my obtaining
this infoi'ination.
Senator Ervix. Xow, you said you have some distinctions that I find
difficult to comprehend. You said that using force like burglary to
obtain information or by bugging to obtain information were bad,
evil.
Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir ; I believe when you break the law.
SenatoT- Ervix'. But obtaining information by fraud is not?
]Mr. ]McMixowAY [conferring with counsel]. My counsel would like
you to restate the question, please.
Senator Ervix'^. I said obtaining information by fraud is a righteous
activity, in your opinion ?
4511
Mr. Mc]MixowAY. I never tried to use fraud for misrepresentation.
Senator Ervin. You mean you didn't use any fraud at all in con-
nection with the 1972 campaign ?
]Mr. Mc]Mi NOWAY. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. Why did you give the wrong name ? "WHiy did you
conceal your identity ?
Mr. McMixowAY [conferring with counsel]. That is, in my opinion,
that wasn't fraud. I used two different names because I was working
simultaneously in two different headquarters.
Senator Ervix. And so you wanted to defraud two groups of peoplt
thinking you were two different men ?
Mr. McMixowAY. Xo, sir; it was not with that purpose. The purpose
of the dual name situation arose in Milwaukee when I started receiv-
ing phone calls from the ]Muskie people at my hotel room, therefore,
it was necessary to have a name for them to call me when they called
the hotel. They couldn't just call and say you know the guy that is
working for us, they had to have a name to call and it was a similar
situation with the Humphrey people.
Senator Ervix. AVell, did you tell the truth when you gave a false
name?
Mr. ]McMixowAY. I wasn't under oath at the time.
Senator Ervix. Well, do you think it is all right to lie when you are
not under oath and practice fraud and deception just when you are not
under oath ?
oNIr. ]McMiNO\VAY. No, sir; I don't.
Senator Ervin. You don't think you were practicing fraud when you
tried to deceive one of these organizations in believing you were a
different man from ]McMinoway, did you?
Mr. McMixoW' AY. No, sir, I don't tliink I was defraud
Senator Ervin. You don't even think that was lying, do you?
Mr, McMixowAY. Pardon ?
Senator Ervix, You don't even think that was lying when you gave
a false name?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, that was not in context of falsification of
uny
Senator Ervix'. You think when you gave a false name to anyone
of these organizations to induce them to believe you were somebody
besides MclNIinoway you were not lying to them ?
Mr. McMixowAY. No, sir. You are trying to read into my testimony
and my statements that I purposely, with the intent of fraud used
different names and that is not the case.
Senator Ervin. That was not the question.
Are you stating upon your oath that when you gave one of these
organizations the false name to call you by and to phone you by, that
you were not attempting to deceive them into believing you were not
McMinoway ?
Mr. McMixowAY. No, sir, I was not trying to deceive them. There
was never an attempt on my part made to conceal the fact I was Mc-
Minoway, a registered Republican voter in the State of Kentucky.
Senator Ervix\ You were a registered Republican voter?
Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir, at that time.
Senator Ervin, And you voted in the election of 1972 ?
4512
Mr. McMixowAY. I have voted in every election since I was old
enough, sir.
Senator Ervin. And you have always voted the Republican candi-
date ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Xo, sir, I have not.
Senator Ervin. Whom did you vote for in 1962 for the oiRce of
President ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. 1962?
Senator Ervix. 1972.
Mr. McMixowAY. I do not believe that is the Senator's right to ask
me that. I believe that is my right to conceal that.
Senator Ervix. You were a registered Republican ?
Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervix. So you wanted to keep the registrar ignorant, wdiich
3^ou have a right to do ?
Mr. McMixowAY. In Kentucky, sir— —
Senator Ervix. I respect the right to a secret ballot. But it is the
first time I have ever been told in my life that a man does not prac-
tice deception when he misrepresents his identity and misrepresents
his political philosophy — at least, impliedly — for the purpose of in-
filtrating and getting intelligence from people he is opposed to
politically.
Mr. McMixowAY. Well, you have the prerogative to believe that and
to accept the terminology in that manner, as do I have the prerogative
to assume that — I mean, we are talking about terminology here.
Senator.
Senator Ervix. I think so.
Mr. McMixowAY. I think that we can save a lot of time because you
are interpreting the actions that I undertook in 1972 as deception and
I am interpreting them as a part of my political operation of intelli-
gence gathering. I have never. I do not think the committee has im-
plied, nor have I admitted nor will I admit nor did I do any illegal
activities. Now, we could sit here for the rest of the winter and talk
about ethics and politics and we can talk about politics and religion.
But these things are not relevant to my particular operation. My
particular operation was intelligence gathering. The MO or the modus
operandi that I used to gather this information can be argued from
both sides.
Senator Ervix. Well, I just haA^e one more question of you. You
are sweaiing upon your oath that you believed that everything you
did as revealed by your diar\^ was righteous conduct?
Mr. Haddad. Senator, if I might object to that, that is a matter of
opinion.
Senator Ervix. Well, I am asking his opinion on the matter.
Mr. Haddad. It is not a matter that might be material in this situa-
tion as to how he might feel. I think he has exjiressed quite openly
what his operation was and what his feeling of his operation is.
Senator Ervix. Well, he has.
Mr. Haddad. Obviously, you do not agree with that.
Senator Ervix. Oh, I agree. I believe everything he has said about
his operations except his conclusions about them.
Mr. Haddad. I think that is a matter for each one to draw for them-
selves, is it not ?
4513
Senator Ervin. Sure.
Mr. Haddad, I believe he has amply answered, Senator, in all respect.
Senator Erm:n. Do you object to his answering the question as to
whether he believes that his conduct was altogether righteous ?
Mr. Haddad. I think he has answered it and I do not think that
whether it was righteous or not is really material.
Senator Ervin. AVhat did he tell me about that ? I did not catch his
answer.
Mr. Haddad. He has answered quite a number of times on what he
felt his operation amounted to and Avhat his feelings and what his
opinions are of w^hat it was. You disagree with him on the terms of
whether or not it was espionage or whether it was intelligence
gathering.
Senator ER\^x. I am going to order him to answer the question.
Mr. Haddad. In that case, I will let him answer it.
Senator Ervix. Do you honestly think that these activities which
you have described and which you have described in your diary were
righteous activities?
]Mr. ^IcMixowAY. From my interpretation, yes, sir.
Senator Ervix. That is all.
Senator Baker.
Senator Baker. ]Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I have an idea
that this is a good point to reiterate what I said yesterday, that we are
now in that netherworld of trying to establish subjective considera-
tions and values as distinguished from whether something is legal or il-
legal. I reallv very much doubt that many would claim that political
practice, if it is political practice, to conduct political intelligence ac-
tivities against one's opponents or potential opponents an attractive or
desirable thing. I am not one of those who believe that anxiihing is fair
in love, war, and politics. But I am concerned for how this committee
goes about an orderly examination of the political mores or the habits,
the patterns of conduct, and activities that have grown up in the
American political system. Your use of the word "I'ighteous" and your
order to the witness that he answer whether his conduct was righteous
or not disturbs me. It disturbs me because, of course, the word
"righteous" is not used in the resolution that created this committee. I
really do not aspire to be righteous, which has a fairly imperative tone
to it. I do hope to be right as often as I can, but that, too, will be
imperfect.
What we are mandated to inquire into is to what extent we can rec-
ommend legislation in the Congress of the Ignited States relating to
illegal, unethical, or undesirable conduct. And on' 3 again, I think we
are going to have to try to establish the benchmarks by which we judge
what is undesirable and maybe then, when we have done that and
finished our undertaking, then we can aspire to be righteous.
I would like to go into this just for a minute more. I do not think
there is any doubt tlmt this witness has testified that he was in fact a
paid agent, that he was an agent to collect information, that he may or
may not, wittingly or unwittin.frly, have caused injury and harm to the
candidacy of a pai'ticular candidate. I will violate the precept I estab-
lished and the discipline I imposed on myself when T said earlier in
these hearings that I would not comment on the relevancy or the irn-
portance or credibility of any witness by saying I characterize this
4514
sort of conduct as undesirable. Now, whether it is immoral or illegal or
unethical or whatnot, has to do rather with suggestive individual
values and with the unfortunate pattern of conduct that may or may
not have grown up in the American political scene. But I am going to
do the best I can to find out what is going on, what has been going on
for a long time.
Yesterday, when we had our witness, he indicated that his previous
foray into politics was campus politics. I was in campus politics, I ran
and was elected to be president of the student body of the University
of Tennessee, which was the only other elective post I have ever held.
I may say that some of the shenanigans that go on in campus politics
would really wither one's conscience. It really is blatantly bad in many
cases. I am concerned for how that example carries forward into our
more adult occupations. I do not propose that Senate Resolution 60 be
amended to inquire into campus politics, but it is something that I am
going to give some more thought to.
But let us start from the premise, IMr. McMinoway, that you are in
fact a paid agent. We have no disagreement on that, I take it?
Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir.
Senator Baker. T^t us go from that to the proposition that your
agentry took you into the campaigns of Senator's Muskie, INIcGovem,
and Humphrey, and that your pattern of operations was essentially
the same in all three. Is that correct ?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, it was.
Senator Baker. And I observed from your testimony these funda-
mental things — one, that you had no trouble at all, even without lying
about your affiliation, simply by saying nothing, in working your way
into every extraordinarily sensitive and important position in those
campaigns?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator Baker. And that while you worked in those campaigns, I
suppose for the sake of double agentry or for the sake of the agent
relationship, you did in fact do your best to help the particular can-
didate that you were working with at that moment?
Mr. McMiNow^vY. Yes, sir, I did.
Senator Bailer. But your primary and motivating instinct was to
perform your original agentry, and that is to gain information to
report to your employer, who was involved in some way in the Repub-
lican campaign of 1972 ?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. In the course of that endeavor, you did your job
and you did in fact report from time to time. You also observ^ed other
conduct by other than Republicans against Democratic aspirants for
the nomination to be President of the United States.
IVIr. ^IcMiNowAY. Yes, sir. At that time, I was in a better position
to observe the Democrats than I was the Republicans.
Senator Baker. Do you know whether or not there was anyone
comparable to you who was being paid by any of the other Democratic
candidates to work against his fellow Democrats in the campaign ?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. You do know? Would you give us an example of
that?
Mr. McMinoway. Richard Tuck would be an example of a paid
operative in the same capacity which I operated in, with the exception
4515
that I believe he has admitted to purposely partaking in political tricks
and pranlis.
Senator Baker. Do you know of any others ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No major characters.
Senator Baker. All right. Let us examine some of the other exam-
ples you have already given us. You say you know of a precinct work-
er, campaign staff, and other information paraphernalia of a compet-
ing candidate appearing in the headquarters of the candidate you were
working with at that time. Did I understand you correctly ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. I am a little unclear. Are you telling us that you
think that information, say, a Humphrey precinct list showed up, for
instance, in Muskie headquarters by some surreptitious or immoral or
illegal way ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. It is my opinion. This is just based on my own
personal knowledge, that there was quite a bit of literature and in-
formation passing from headquarters to headquarters.
Senator Baker. Is it your opinion that it was being transferred free-
ly and openly or that it was being transferred surreptitiously and
secretly ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. It was definitely not transmitted openly and
above board.
Senator Baker. Do you know whether that was done by volunteers
or by paid agents ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I do not really know, sir.
Senator Baker. But you do know that the end result was that you
observed firsthand that structural information or important political
information of one candidate showed up in the campaign headquarters
of another candidate ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, it did.
Senator Baker. Let's examine another piece of your testimony. You
indicate that on occasion, you know of episodes where the campaign
staff of one candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination — I
believe you identified Senator McGovern's effort — planned and exe-
cuted demonstrations against one of his fellow Democrats, Senator
Muskie, and that there was a discussion of some sort about the sus-
ceptibility of Senator Muskie to demonstrations of that sort by Mc-
Govem supporters?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, by the supporters, at least.
Senator Baker. That is what I want to reach for. You have given u9
that piece of information, which is useful to establish the habits, the
patterns, the practices, the political mores of the country. But can
you go one step further ? Can you tell me how high up in the pecking
order, what degree of responsibility did such participants have, say, in
the McGovem campaign ? Were they big fish or little fish ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I believed some of them to be big fish in their par-
ticular capacities.
Senator Baker. Can you identify them or describe their assign-
ment?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Well, the youth coordinator for the McGovern
national committee was one of the organizers of some of the protests
and the heckling.
Senator Baker. Wliat was his name ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Tom Southwick.
4516
Senator Baker. And Mr. Soutliwick was the national director of the
McGovern Youth Campai^?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. That is the way he was identified to me.
Senator Baker. Did you see or hear him participate in plans to dem-
onstrate against Senator Muskie?
Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, he conveyed these thoughts to me and he
also was helping in the manufacturing of the posters that was men-
tioned in my diary.
Senator Baker. Do you know how the money was come by to make
those posters or promote that activity against Senator Muskie?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Not exactly. I mean I can't testify specifically that
it came from staff funds. I know on the instance of the poster making
at the McGovern headquarters, they were using office paper and glue
and scissors — at least using the office supplies that were there at the
time.
Senator Baker. It was McGovern equipment, McGovern people in
the McGovern headquarters that iDlanned, created the paraphernalia
for, and executed a demonstration against Senator Muskie?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. Do you consider that righteous ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I don't.
Sefiator Baker. OK, let's stay away from that. That is my quid
pro quo.
Let's move on, then, to some of the other situations. You spoke of
the campaign in California, and I am sorry I was called away from
the room for a while and I didn't get the whole burden of your testi-
mony in that respect. I am going to move next to the Democratic Na-
tional Convention in Florida. You have implied some fairly important
things, but neither Mr. Dash nor Mr. Thompson pressed you to the
point where I could understand what you are talking about.
Now, you were part of the McGovern security force on the I7th
floor of his headquarters hotel at the convention of the Democratic
National Convention in 1972. Is that correct?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. That is correct.
Senator Baker. And on one occasion, the one to which you have
testified, a delegate from a State asked to see Mr. Gary Hart. "V^Hiat was
Mr. Hart's title?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I believe he was campaign manager.
Senator Baker. To Senator McGovern ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes. It is not clear in my mind exactly what his
title was. Frank Mankiewicz and he were the two top policymaking
staff.
Senator Baker. And the delegate did come to the I7th floor and was
shown Mr. Hart's room ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir, he was.
Senator Baker. Were you present with the delegate when he went
to Mr. Hart's room ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I walked with him to the door.
Senator Baker. Did you hear the conversation between the dele-
gate and Mr. Hart ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, I didn't.
Senator Baker. How long was he with Mr. Hart ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Probably 10 or 15 minutes.
4517
Senator Baker. Was anybody else present in the room ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I didn't go into the room.
Senator Baker. He came back out and left, is that correct ?
Mr. McMixowAY. I know he left. I was outside and I escorted him
from the premises.
Senator Baker. All right. And someone in authority on the I7th
floor of the McGovern hotel headquarters asked you to get a car from
the car pool to meet this delegate and to take him to the Playboy
Plaza?
Mr. McMixowAY. No. sir, they didn't give me the destination. It
was common practice at the convention to provide cars for delegates
and their family and friends. I was merely instructed to get the car
and go downstairs and wait for the delegate.
Senator Baker. Did they give you any other instruction ?
Mr, McMiNOWAY. No, sir, the delegate himself gave me the desti-
nation.
Senator Baker. And he came out of the hotel and had two people
with him ?
Mr. MoMiNOWAY. When I pulled out, he was standing outside —
they have a driveway drivethrough at the hotel.
Senator Baker. Did you know the two girls he had with him ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, one of them I had seen before in the hotel.
Senator Baker. Were these girls known to you to be prostitutes or
did you learn later that they were ?
Mr, McMiNOWAY. Not prostitutes. Senator. They exhibited some,
what I considered some immoral activities in the car between the Doral
Hotel and the Playboy Plaza.
Senator Baker. Can you tell this committee that there was a link
or connection between the immoral activity of those two women and
the delegate in the back seat of that car and his visit to Gary Hart ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Not specifically. In other words, I cannot testify
that — I don't know whether — the girls could have possibly been with
him when he came, he could have met them coming in or going out. I
can't say that he was supplied those two girls by the McGovern staff,
no, sir.
Senator Baker. So the broad outlines of what you are telling us is
that a delegate from a State at the national convention visited Mr.
Hart and left, that you were instructed to provide him transportation,
that he came out of the hotel in the company of two women whom you
decline to characterize as prostitutes but with which he engaged in
immoral activity in the back seat of the car, and that is all you
know about it ?
INIr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. Do you know of other episodes of that type?
Mr, McMiNOWAY. Not of that specific, in that specific a degree when
I was present. It never happened in my presence. I do know that there
were several women throughout the hotel and there were many, many
in Florida that I would classify as prostitutes and women that were
making propositions to delegates, nondelegates.
Senator Baker, Do you know of any effort by any candidate at the
Democratic National Convention in 1972 to utilize the good offices of
these women in connection with their delegate activities ?
Mr, McMiNOWAY, No, sir.
4518
Senator Baker. My final questions are these. As I indicated at the
beginning, it will be our ultimate responsibility to try to make rec<)m-
melidations to the Congress, not only on the status of this "^vestigation
with respect to the existing law, but also with respect to new and addi-
tional laws that might be appropriate to the elective processes and t<)
identify those things that are undesirable or immoral or unethical.
Now, you have been through a unique experience for a young man
and I think you have been very forthcoming and frank and candid m
your replies. I do not believe that you should be taken to task for out-
lining the breadth and scope of your undertaking I disapprove of
it, which I said a moment ago. I think that maybe the principal func-
tion of this committee will be to establish those things that ought ^
not to happen, even though they may happen. But can you make any ,
recommendations, do you have any ideas or suggestions that you can ,
make to this committee about where we ought to draw the line— |
what we ought to make illegal, what we ought to identify as clearly ,
undesirable or unethical political conduct ?
Do you have any suggestions for us, Mr. McMinoway i
Mr. McMiNOWAY. My major suggestion to the committee and to
politicians and the public in general would be that I personally de-
plore the break-in type activities and the illegal type activities, but 1
feel personally that political intelligence gathering by the means that 1
tried to employ are a necessar}^ function at the present time ot political
campaigns, especially on a national level.
Senator Baker. If you assume that, I disagree with you. Can you
recommend how we could stop that? For instance, how would you
feel about a statute that made it illegal for the paid agent or mtormer
of another candidate to offer himself for services or volunteer other-
wise in the campaign of another National or Federal candidate^
Mr. McMinoway. If it was against the law, then I would teel it
should not be done.
Senator Baker. All right. If that statute were passed, would you
have declined to undertake the job you did undertake?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. Do you think the American political system would
be better off had there been such a statute at the time you were
approached and asked to do that j ob ?
Mr. McMinoway. If it were an effective statute, sir.
Senator Baker. Well, assume that it was an effective statute. Assume »
that you were asked to do what you in fact did do, and that you knew,
or it\vas brought to your attention that if you did it — that is, if you ;
accepted pay and compensation to gain intelligence and information I
from potential Democratic opponents, that it would be a violation of j
Federal statute law and a felony, that is, I think, all you need to '
assume. You must assume that the law would be enforced.
Mr. McMinoway. I would therefore not have undertaken the opera-
tion, no, sir.
Senator Baker. All right. Would the xVmerican political system i
be better off or not, had that law l)een in place and effective at the time 5
you were approached to take this job ?
Mr, McMinoway. I really can't answer that. Senator, with a yes or
no answer. In my opinion, some system of coordinated political activity,
campaign structural activity would have to be worked out first. I don't
4519
think that it is possible to undertake a Democratic form of Govern-
ment witli free election where one candidate operates totally without
the knowledge of the other candidate. I think if the legislation would
include some sort of negotiated revelation between the ditferent can-
didates where the right arm would know what the left arm is doing—
in other words, not necessarily specific actions, but I think that it is
necessary for one candidate to know the other candidate's primary
issues and what he plans to make campaign issues so that he is granted
a free and equal response to these issues.
If this type of system could be worked out where that one Senator
would know — Senatorial candidate would know what the other Sen-
atorial candidate plans to do strategywise, then possibly a system of
this type would work. But as long as the mere legislation would be
j)assed just to make it illegal, the only thing I think that type of legis-
lation would do would create more lawbreakers, because I believe that
it is impossible to operate a successful campaign without knowing
what the other man is doing.
Senator Baker. That is really a broader answer than my questions,
but I thank you for it. But I think I can rely on your previous answer.
You know, any penal statute has two parts. It has a deterrent quality
and it has the punishment factor. I believe your answer already is
that had we had such a statute in place and effective at the time you
were offered this job, the first part of that statute, the deterrent factor,
would have prevented you from taking this job ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir ; it w^ould have.
Senator Baker, Tliank you very much.
Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. In response to the question relating to your em-
ployer, you said that you w^eren't certain who you were working for —
it could have been a Democrat, Republican, atheist, Communist, or
what have you — and that you found out who your employer was as
a result of these hearings. Is my recollection correct, sir?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I found out who the employer was definitely from
the hearings. As I mentioned earlier, I had suspicioned that the people
that I was working for w^ere alined with the political philosophy,
at least, of Republicanism and my interpretation of that.
Senator Inouye. You have listed the sums received for your effort
as $5,800.
Mr. McMiNOWAY. $5,808.10.
Senator Inouye. Did you list the sums received in your income tax
return ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir ; I did list them in my income tax.
Senator Inouye. How did you identify the source of this income?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I believe on my income tax form, it states "re-
search work" or "investigative work." I am not sure of the exact termi-
nology. But it is listed separate from my other employment income.
Senator Inouye. You have testified in interviews with the staff
that you met with the chief of the security division of the McGovem
headquarters on Saturday, July 8 ?
Mr. ]McMiNow^4Y. Yes, sir; I believe that was the initial contact
with Mr. Barash* — is that who you are referring to ?
•Subsequent to this hearing, an affidavit was received by Anthony H. Barash too late
for publication in this book. It will appear in Book 12.
4520
Senator Inotjye. Yes; and then you were immediately hired by
him to serve as his deputy.?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Well, I was referred to him by Mr. Tom South-
wick.
Senator Inotjye. When did you begin your service as security
officer ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. About 5 minutes after the initial handshake
with Mr. Borash.
Senator Inotjye. And you have testified that you were on duty for
3 days as security officer?
Mr. McMiNowAY. Approximately 3 or 4 days, sir.
Senator Inouye. So that is July 8,9, and 10 ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. And I was also there on the 11th and 12th. The
period of time was scattered from July 8 Tmtil July 13, when I left
Miami, Fla.
Senator Inouye. So it was more than 3 days?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. There were several days that I was as-
signed to a shift or I assumed a shift of posts and there were other
days that I worked there in the hotel, not specifically on the I7th floor.
I think the 3-day reference in the notes is to the 3 days I actually
served at a specific assigned post, in other words, at a command post.
Senator Inouye. "Wliat days were these ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. The Monday of the California vote, Sunday after-
noon for awhile, on Tuesday, and I believe Wednesday afternoon that
I specifically had those, you know, that particular post to be responsible
for.
Senator Inouye. In June of this year, you had an interview, at which
time you indicated that Mr. Mankiewicz told you that he was a^\are of
Mr. Eagleton's hospitalization ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir; I believe you have that incorrect. That
particular statement was reported in one of the newspapers in St.
Louis, I believe.
Senator Inouye. That is not the truth ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. Tlie actual instance of that was that I had over-
heard a conversation about Mr. Eagleton's health — period. Not any
reference to mental health or breakdown or anything, but just health.
This same line of questioning was discussed about every potential Vice-
Presidential candidate. I am assuming they wanted to make sure the
guv was not going to drop dead.
Senator Inouye. Then this article of Jime 24, 1973, is not correct? I
Mr. McMinoway. No, sir ; it is not. If you are referring to the St.
Louis Post
Senator Inouye. Yes.
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir : that is misrepresented.
Senator Inouye. Now, getting back to my first question, to which
you responded you were not certain who your employers were, is it not
a fact that you were first contacted by a friend of yours?
Mr. McMinoway. An acquaintance, an acquaintance that I had
known some yeare earlier.
Senator Inouye. As a result of Republican campaigning?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir. I met him while working in a Republican
campaign, yes.
Senator Inotjye. Weren't you told that you were hired by a group
of conservative Republican businessmen ?
4521
[ Mr. McMiNowAY. I believe the terminology that I remember, sir,
,' was concerned citizens. The indication possibly was made of biisiness-
men, but actually, my recollection of that is not as clear as some of
the other actual operational matters.
Senator Inouye. I gather from your background that you are not
politically naive. You have been president of the Young Republican
organization in college, you took part in a gubernatorial campaign.
You have been very active for many years. I find it rather difficult
to understand how a young man with such political background would
accept employment to do political espionage not knowing just who
his employers were.
Mr. McMixow^AY. As you have mentioned, Senator, I was politically
active for a number of years and in a number of different campaigns.
I had participated in local and State and National elections quite
frequently. The interest in this particular assignment or the drawing
factor to this particular assignment to me was the travel around the
country and it 'was something that I had never done. It was a challenge
and I appreciated that challenge.
Senator Inouye. With your Republican background, you were will-
ing to work for Democratic organizations?
Mr. McMiNOw^AY. I have worked for Democratic organizations,
Senator.
Senator Inouye. For pay ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Pardon ?
Senator Inouye. For pay, as in this case ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Not in intelligence gathering, but I have worked
for political organizations other than the voluntary work of the 1972
primaries.
Senator Inouye. I have several questions, but the last one for this
round, are you aware of chapter 817 of the Florida Criminal Code?
Mr. McMiNo\VAY. No. sir.
Senator Inouye. I will read this to you. It is 17.02, obtaining prop-
erty by false personation.
Whoever falsely personates or represents another and in such assumed char-
acter receives any property intended to be delivered to the party so personated,
with intent to convert the same to his own use shall be punished as if he had
been convicted of larceny.
You received a button which very few people received during the
Democratic Convention, a button that permitted you to full access
of the 17th floor, sometliing that permitted you to gather valuable
information in an area that was carefully guarded by the Secret
Service, this little thing here.
Do you think you violated this section of the Florida code?
IVIr. Mc^Mtxoway. No, sir, I don't. That button was given to ]\Ii-
chael McMinoway. It was not given to any misrepresented person.
Senator Inouye. You actually believe that you were working for
Mr. McGovern at that time ?
Mr. MclMiNOWAY. That button is a designation of staff position
with the IVIcGovern organization and while I was at the McGoyern
Drganization and while I wore that button, I partook of the activities
ind the obligations and the responsibilities of that position and I did
not falsify or do anything except do a good job of that particular
ictivity.
4522
Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervix. The committee will stand in recess until 2 : 30.
[Whereupon, at 12 : 35 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene
at 2 : 30 p.m., the same day.]
Afternoon Session, Wednesday, October 10, 1973
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order.
Before Senator Gurney starts to question the witness, I would like to
make an announcement about the resolution the Senate has just passed
at the request of the committee.
As chairman of the committee I have been served with subpenas re-
quiring me to appear in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York to testifv and produce to the Senate, certain
Senate documents in the custody of the committee on October 23.
The committee, all members of the committee, are anxious to co-
operate in every possible way with the enforcement of the laws,
and at the request of all members of the committee, Senator Baker
and I introduced a resolution whereby the Senate gave me permis-
sion to testify in that case, and to produce any documents which are
relevant to the issues joined in the case in which the subpena is is-
sued. The case involves a so-called Vesco contribution. The resolu-
tion authorizes the Select Committee to attempt to determine some-
thing not revealed by the subpenas ; namely, whether the information
sought is relevant to the issues joined in the case in which the sub-
penas have been issued, and the resolution adopted by the Senate
authorizes the committee txi undertake to ascertain that question, set-
tle that question, by consultation with the attorneys in the case or by
ap):)ropriate motions before the U.S. District Court itself.
The committee is anxious to cooperate in every way wdth the produc-
tion of any evidence in its possession which may be relevant to the con-
troversy involved in that case, and I thought it would be proper to
make this announcement.
Senator Gurney.
Senator Gurney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McMinoway, turning to your diary, on the entry on March 25,
you touched on this planned disruption of Muskie's television inter-
view. Would you explain in detail exactly what happened ?
Mr. McMiNow^\Y. Yes, sir.
As is noted in the diary I personally observed the production of
signs and placards and w^hat have you, that were intended for use in a
demonstration that was to be held at the TV station in Milwaukee
Senator Gurney. Were these signs manufactured, produced in the
McGovern headquarters?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes ; they were.
Senator Gurney. What did they say, what kind of signs were they ?
Mr. McMinoway. Well, the one that is noted in the diary form is
tabbed exhibit 2 [exhibit No. 231], is the quotation "America needs a
leader, not a crybaby,'' and this was, I felt, a derogatory cut at Senator
Muskie's emotional outbreak over in New Hampshire.
Senator Gi-rney Plow many of these signs were there, do you recall ?
Mr. McMinoway. Not specifically, Senator, but there were a num-
ber of signs being made.
4523
Senator Gurney. Were there other signs in addition to this partic-
ular cry baby one ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Oh, yes. Each sign carried a different slogan.
Senator Gurney. Do you recall some of the other slogans?
Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir, not specifically.
Senator Gurney. Can you give an approximate idea of how many
numbers of signs there were?
Mr. McMiNOWAY, There were approximately 8 to 10 people
working on the signs. Each individual was making, in passing — in my
passing through, they were all working on different signs.
Senator Gurney. Each one was making several signs?
Mr. McMiNowAY. Eight.
Senator Gurney. Go on now.
Mr. McMiNOWAY. As the plan was explained to me by Mr. South-
wick, what they had planned to do was to use those signs on Sunday
morning over at the radio and TV station headquarters to just protest
up and down and hopefully upset Senator Muskie's composure before
he went in for the "Meet the Press" conference. I supplied this commit-
tee staff a copy of the transcript that I obtained from the press of this
particular TV interview and it may be noted in this particular tran-
script it shows an agitation and a less than composed attitude taken
by Senator Muskie during this particular TV appearance.
Senator Gurney. In fact, I recall that television appearance, and
my recollection is similar to yours. He did seem somewhat upset, and
it is your thought that one of the reasons why he was, was because of
the demonstrations outside ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. I found this to be at least my personal
observation, that during harassment or heckling by the crowds Muskie
did become quite upset and shaken.
Senator Gurney, Were there quite a few demonstrators outside?
Could you give an approximate idea of how many ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Unfortunately that particular morning I over-
slept and I did not go to the TV station myself. It Avas normally my
practice not to be in the vicinity of such, even though I knew about
such things, I tried purposely not to go around those.
Senator Gurney. Would you characterize this as a dirty trick by
McGovern people on Senator Muskie ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. I noted also in your diary on the witness sheet
that you obtained a Muskie schedule and gave it to the Humphrey
people in Wisconsin, is that correct ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. Who did you give it to in the Humphrey head-
quarters ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. The press, the man who was handling the advance
press schedule of Humphrey.
Senator Gurney. One of Humphrey's key people?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes. It was — tlie name I can't recall right off the
top of my head Init the gentleman's function was to help in scheduling
press appearances and scheduling for the Senator.
Senator Gurney. Did you tell him how you obtained the schedule ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No,' sir. In most instances, the passing of the
schedules from one headquarters to another was handled anonymously.
Senator Gurney. But you gave it to him ?
4524
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Not personally, sir. I verbally gave it to him but I
did not physically hand him the documents, t^sually these things were
handled over the telephone. I would call and ask for the press secretary
for the advance man of that particular city and in just a matter of fact
conversation give them what I j)urported to be the schedule.
Senator Gurney. Did he know^ who you were ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir.
Senator Gurney. Anyway, he knew he was getting information
from someone out of the Muskie headquarters ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. Did he object to getting this information?
Mr. McMixow^AY. No, sir. They were very thankful.
Senator Gurney. So to paraphrase it, he was very grateful that
somebody was gathering political intelligence on Humphrey for
Muskie — is that a fair way to put it ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. I believe they were quite walling to re-
ceive the information.
Senator Gurney. Then I noted on page 6 of the witness summary
that you did the same thing in reverse.
Mr. McMiNOWAY. What day, Senator ?
Senator Gurney. Well, let me see where that is. If I can find it here
or perhaps I had better ask you the question : Did you do that in re-
verse, get Humphrey's schedule for the Muskie people ?
Mr. McMiNOw^\Y. Yes, sir. After I initially gave the infonnation
to my contact, oftentimes I would pass it along to the other people.
Senator Gurney. Well, was there any objection on the part of the
Muskie people to getting the Humphrey schedule ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, there wasn't. The same attitude persisted
in each and every organization that I encountered.
Senator Gurney. What you are saying is any political intelligence
that you were able to generate for either Muskie or Humphrey in Wis-
consin was very gladly received by both camps — is that right ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. And they had no objection to political intelligence
gathering on the other fellow ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir ; they didn't.
Senator Gurney. Or if we can put it a little more boldly, you may be
offended by this term, but they had no objection to political spying,
either ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, they didn't.
Senator Gltrney. So it works for Democrats as well as Republicans?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Very often.
Senator Gurney. It is a pox on both your houses. It certainly was |
in the 1972 campaign. I mean it was going on, to your knowledge, in j
the candidates' camps on the Democrat side ? j
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Very definitely.
Senator Gurney. Let's go to the University of Wisconsin speech
that Muskie made that you referred to, and yoii talked about it before,
but again I would like to find out more in detail what happened.
Can you give a more voluminous description of this particular
heckling ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir.
4525
!
I Senator Miiskie had planned, and it was announced public — an
i announcement had been made that he was speaking to the Univei-sity
■ of Wisconsin to the student body. It was not really a large crowd there
i but it was an enthusiastic crowd, and at this particular instance I
was there because I went out with the Muskie people to the university.
I noticed a lot of heckling, a lot of catcalling and this type of — you
know, boisterous type demonstration. There were a few signs but I
did notice that some of the catcalling and some of the heckling was
coming from people that I recognized from the McGovern youth
movement.
Senator Gurxey. So in this instance, again of your own personal
knowledge, you know that at least some of the heckling and disruption
was done by McGovern people because you had seen them in the Mc-
Govern headquarters ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurxey. Can you give — were there obscenities used by these
hecklers ?
Mr. INIcMixowAY. Not to a large extent in "Wisconsin, but as we
progressed through the campaign to California, the attacks became,
as the field of candidates narrowed down, the attacks became more
personal and more obscene, in some cases.
Senator Gurxey. Well, what kind of heckling occurred at this
Wisconsin rally ?
Mr. McMixowAY. Catcalling, whistling, screaming, hollering,
chanted clapping and singing. Any kind of boisterous noise that would
(lis?-upt communications over the PA system and make hearing the
Senator very, very difficult.
Senator Gurxey. Was Senator Muskie able to complete his speech ?
Mr. McMixowAY. No, sir. He did complete speaking there but I
am — at the time I was advised of what he was planning on talking
about but he didn't cover completely the topics and the area that he
had originally planned to cover.
Senator Gurxey. In other words, the heckling was so serious or so
boisterous or it annoyed him so much that he cut short his speech and
1 did not cover the points that he intended to ; is that a fair thing to say ?
Mr. McMixowAY. In my opinion, he did cut the speech and he was
obviously very, very upset.
Senator Gurxey. Would you characterize this, at least insofar as the
l)eople you identified as McGovern peoj^le, as being a dirty trick played
by the McGovern people on Senator Muskie ?
Mr. McMixowAY. I feel that everyone has a right to their own
[[Opinion, but to express your opinion at the expense of someone else, it
is flefinitely not desirable, to say the least.
Senator Gurxey. Let us go to the Humphrey fundraising dinner
that you talked about that occurred at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in
California. I understand that there, too, there Avas picketing and
harassment. Could you describe that in more detail ?
Mr, McMixowAY. Yes, sir. This was one of the extravaganzas of the
California campaign from the aspect of one of Senator Humphreys
fundraising drives. I believe it was a $100-a-plate sitdown dinner
where the Senator was to speak. It was rather a formal affair. The drive
centered upon getting large contributors there and a lot of personalities
4526 ;
and known faces. The McGovern youth people who worked in the
Santa Monica area — who I was familiar with at least from the stand-
point of recognition sightwise and from knowing around headquar-
ters— had gotten together a group of people primarily from around a
college campus area, UCLA, and so forth. They proceeded over to
the Beverly Hilton Hotel approximately an hour and a half before
the scheduled start of this dinner.
In many instances, the ISIcGovern people would caravan to a rally
or to a demonstration in as few number of vehicles as they could ; you
know, all of them would pile in one car, maybe 8 or 10 people,
and drive, to save expenses and so forth. But I remember specifically
on this evening, they took as many different cars as they could so as
to take up as many parking spaces close to the hotel, really to neces-
sitate the guests at the banquet having to walk at least some dis-
tance, where they would have a chance to observe the signs and the
protesters.
Senator Gitrney. What kind of signs were they carrying ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. The same type, sir, anti-Humphrey, anti — espe-
cially they were not pro-McGovern signs, but they were not pro-
Humphrey signs. They were some of the concern-type signs, some of
the statements— statements taken out of context and used from the
standpoint, for embarrassment to Senator Humphrey.
Senator Gurnet. Do you recall how many were engaged in this
heckling ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. I recognized several faces. There were several
people. I would say there were upward of 30 people involved in the
total demonstration ; but I did recognize, myself, at least 4 or 5,
probably, people that I knew that were actively working in the Mc-
Govern campaign.
Senator Gurnet. What about verbal harassment? Did they use
that?
Mr. McMiNowAT. As I mentioned earlier, the verbal attack and
heckling had become more personal and there was a lot of — not hol-
lering and screaming, because there were policemen in the vicinity
and eventually, in my opinion, that is what finally broke up the dem-
onstration, not police intervention, but the fact that the police were
there and there was no desire for confrontation with the law authori-
ties.
Senator Gurnet. You mentioned, too, the Humphrey press confer-
ence. As I understand it, he was going to a nursing home and he would
be followed by cameras that would film this, indicating his concern
about people, elderly people who had to spend their time in nursing
homes. Was that the idea?
Mr. McMiNowAT. As I interpreted it. Senator, the idea was to
make an appearance and thereby gain some free publicity. The peo-
ple that accompanied the Senator on many occasions, each candidate
had a corps of pressmen favorable to or at least seemingly in the
favor of the candidate and they would grant the candidates a little
extra special treatment and sometimes report the news from that per-
spective.
Senator Gurnet. Now, describe that harassment that occurred on
this occasion.
4527
\ Mr. McMixowAY. Well, just as the Senator was entering — it was a
'1 suburban nursing home in Los Angeles. Again, I w^as not present for
; the tour. I did drive in one of the cars over to the nursing home area
and I observed, just as the Senator and all the cameramen were pre-
paring to enter the home, a little spontaneous-type demonstration
started. All of a sudden, from nowhere, there came several protesters
carrying signs and heckling. That is when they started the "Hubert
really doesn't care" type chant, you know, and the put-on type.
Senator GtTiNEY. Did they go into the nursing home ?
Mr. INIcMiNOWAY. No, the demonstrators did not.
Senator Gurney. You mentioned this business of the women in
Miami, and I do not particularly want to go into that in detail, but
there are one or two things I did want to ask you about it. You
mentioned one of the delegates got in the car that you were driving
to go from the Doral Hotel to the Playboy Plaza Hotel, that he was
joined b}^ two women, and I think I recall you saying that you
recognized one of them. Is that correct ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I recognized her to the point that I had seen her in
the hotel previous to this occasion.
Senator Gurxey. INIy question is, wdiere did you see her in the hotel,
do you recall ?
Mr. ISIcMiNowAY. As the hotel is laid out, when you come into the
I front entrance of the Doral, you come directly into the lobby. There is
a large reception-type room to the right and the stairs go up to
the mezzanine floor. The mezzanine floor was the gathering point for
delegates, their wives, friends, curious spectators. It w^as probably
I the most frequent access area to the hotel.
Senator Gurxey. And you had seen her there before ?
Mr. McMixowAY. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurxey. Well, what was her job there? What was she
supposed to be doing ? What did you think her mission was ?
Mr. McMixowAY [conferring w^ith counsel].
Senator Talmadge [presiding]. Senator Gurney, have you con-
cluded your interrogation ?
Senator Gurx-^ey. No, the witness is conferring with coimsel on the
answer to my question.
Mr. McMixoway. Prior to that occasion, I had noticed her in the
' hotel once or twice when I was eating lunch and several times in the
<- mezzanine area. I did not draw any conclusions as to what her specific
1 mission there was.
Senator Gurx-^ey. You mentioned the hospitality room in the Doral
Hotel. Could you explain that more fully? What was the layout? ^Yho
was there ? "W^iat were they doing?
Mr. McMiNowAY. Senator, it has been my experience not only at
political conventions but social and business and other conventions,
that there is always a special place in what we call the hospitality
room, which consists of a room where peo]:)le get together and congre-
gate, talk, they drink, sometimes they are singing and dancing. Ba-
sically, the one in the Doral Hotel was used as a meeting place where
delegates could get together and socialize with other delegates, politi-
cal figures could get together and socialize with other politicians, and
so forth.
4528
Senator Gurney. Well, I think you have mentioned, and correct ;
me if I don't state your contention correctly, that in this hospitality i.
room there were always, or usually, women that I think you charac-
terized as of low moral character. Is that correct ? \
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. ^
Senator Gurney. Well, how many were there ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. The number fluctuated, Senator, as did the number
of people in the room. Sometimes there would not be any people there ;
other times, the room would be crowded.
Senator Gurney. Were these girls the ones that you saw there
regularly ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. I traveled quite extensively between the
Doral Hotel and the Fontainebleu Hotel. In each different hotel, there
would be a certain crowd that would hang out in that particular hotel.
You could almost stereotype the diiferent type crowds that were at the
Doral, that were at the Fontainebleu, at the Playboy Plaza, and so
forth.
Senator Gurney. Well, what was the common knowledge as to why
these girls were there — to serve coffee or cokes, or what?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I thought they were prostitutes.
Senator Gurney. And that was the general understanding in the
area,?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I can't speak for anyone else. In my opinion, the
girls were prostitutes.
Senator Gurney. The reason why I am interested in this is not to
drive this particular point into the ground, but a great deal was made
earlier in these hearings about the Liddy plan, when first presented to
Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Magruder and Mr. Dean. The Liddy pla« con-
tained a proposal to use call girls at the Democratic Convention to
subvert the Democrats. It occurs to me, though that particular part of
the plan was canceled, not used, that apparently, at least at the McGov-
ern headquarters, at least in your understanding, the Democrats were
doing it. I think it is pertinent to the inquiry.
There has been some indication in the investigations that we have
conducted here that McGovern headquarters in California were used
by people to organize a heckling of one of President Nixon's appear-
ances in California. Do you have any knowledge of that ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Not of that particular instance. At the time I
was operating with the McGovern and Humphrey people in California,
the basic concern there was the Democratic Presidential primaries and
not the general election in November.
Senator Gurney. Did you ever participate in any of this heckling
or demonstrating or radical disruption that you have testified to here ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I didn't.
Senator Gurney. Do you have any opinion as to whether this par-
ticular activity was more disruptive to the political system of our
country than your intelligence gathering?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I personally feel that, as I mentioned earlier,
when you deprive someone of their right to speak, either by heckling
them dowm or demonstrating and preventing them from even mak-
ing the appearance, you are violating their rights. But I also believe
4529
that you have a right to express your opinion and everyone should
be given equal opportunity to express that opinion.
Senator Gurney. Just one final question, because my time is up.
"Wlien you were performing the security duties in the McGovern head-
quarters in Miami, did you at any time prevent anybody from seeing
Senator McGovern ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. If you mean without authority from the Senator
to do that, no, sir. I never obstructed his visitation.
Senator Gurney. I mean on your own ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, I did not.
Senator Gurney. Thank you.
That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Talmadge [presiding]. The Chair yields at this time to
Senator Montoya.
Senator Montoya. Thank you, Senator Talmadge.
Mr. McMinoway, apparently from what you have related to this
committee, you had quite a bit of training for the job that you were
doing. Now, where did you receive this training ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. If you are talking about political experience or
intelligence gathering?
Senator Montoya. Both.
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Political experience I learned foot in hand, by
starting when I was 8 years old, working at all different types of tasks
and gradually grasping a larger and larger knowledge of the political
operations of the American democratic system as I got older.
Senator Montoya. How old are you now ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I am 27 years old.
Senator Montoya. Where did you learn to infiltrate and gather
intelligence in the manner that you did ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. By reading and talking with people who knew
Bobby Kennedy.
Senator Montoya. And did you have any conferences with anybody
before you started out on your job ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. In relation to how to do this?
Senator Montoya. Yes.
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. "^^Hiat transDired during your meetinir with
Mr. Rainer when you were hired? Were there any specific instruc-
tions given to you ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Yes, sir. The instructions were that I was to
travel through the Democratic primary States gathering information
pertaining to personnel and organizational structure of the Demo-
cratic candidates individual campaio-n organizations.
Senator Montoya. Did you ask him for any credentials as to what
he represented ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir. The question of credentials never came
up at the meeting.
Senator Montoya. Was it not unusua^. in view of your political
experience, that a man went to Lon'sville, Kv.. and asked you to
gather information on primary Presidential candidates and did not
represent himself to be affiliated with any political party or any
political organization ?
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 11
4530
Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir. I have personal knowledfro of this type
of activity taking place at least statewide in my own State for non-
political motivation.
Senator Montoya. Oh, like, for instance, what ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. INIany times newspaper reporters will volunteer
and work in individual campaigns as volunteers to obtain information
of the making of the President-type stories, so that later on, after
the election, they can compile information on the particular campaign
structures and organizations.
Senator Montoya. Do you mean to tell me that newspaper re-
porters infiltrate, too?
Mr. McMiNowAY. I know of one instance personally where news-
paper people possibly — you might not say infiltrate, but they worked
within a campaign. I think this is a fairly widespread practice of
newspaper people and ]:)ress people following campaigns, not just to
report the news, but for writings and documents that they plan to
publish after the elections.
Senator Montoya. Now, you didn't buy Mr. Stone's story or Bhick-
well's that they were interested in behalf of some conservative business
people. You didn't buy that, did you ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. If you mean did I question that, I questioned
it only in the sense of what type of people they were and what ty]x^
of activities would transpire if I did take the job. I didn't question
each individual's character or ask him anything about the individuals
themselves.
Senator Montoya. Well, you stated in your testimony to the staflf
that Mr. Jason Rainer contacted you and that he explained that he
represented some conservative businessman and that he would ask.
that he was asking you to go to different States during the primaries
and find out about the personnel.
NoAv, you didn't buy that, did you ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I had no reason to doubt it. Senator.
Senator Montoya. When did it dawn upon you that you were on
a political mission for the Republican Party ?
Mr, McMiNOWAY. I had suspected it as early as June of 1972.
Senator Montoya. And who did you think you were gathering in-
formation for, such as you gathei'ed. and who did you think you were
performing these tasks for ? You didn't think that you were doing these
things in behalf of these so-called conservative businessmen, did you?
Mr, McMiN0w^\Y. Senator, at the time, I had no desire to even know
who the people were as long as I, myself, felt that the activities were
legal and wei-e not destructive to the American system. T felt that I
was working within the system in a normal political function in carry-
ing out my operation at the time.
Now, I can see where possibly, there would be some question as to
why someone wouldn't challenge that thing. But in 1972, myself nor
the American people had any reason to suspect these types of activities.
Senator Montoya. Did you consider them unethical?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir.
Senator Montoya, Do you today?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Did you consider them improper?
4531
Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Do you today ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Now, you mentioned in your diary on page 5,
tab 5 [exhibit No. 234] :
I infiltrated Humphrey's headquarters by complimenting the elderly oflBce man-
ager, Gertrude Adcovitz, into believing that I was a dedicated Humphrey sup-
porter.
Now, is that a proper thing to do, to try to compliment a person
by deceit ?
]Mr. ]\lcMixowAY. I wasn't trying to deceive the lady. She was a very
nice lady.
Senator Montoya. You weren't a dedicated Humphrey supporter,
were you?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I was working in that capacity.
Senator Montoya. But you were not a dedicated Humphrey sup-
porter, were you?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. That is again a question of terminology. Mrs. Ad-
covitz herself stated in the press that I did everything she asked and
everything they thought I could do to help them.
Senator Montoya. Do you consider yourself a dedicated Humphrey
supporter ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No ; I am not a dedicated Humphrey supporter.
Senator Montoya. Then you were deceiving her ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No.
Senator Montoya. I think it is patently clear that you were.
Now, on April 22, you called people and urged support for Jack-
son, This was in Pennsylvania. iSow, if you were in fact working for
Senator Humphrey doing your work at the Humphrey headquarters
as you have indicated, and you have indicated that you were a dedi-
cated Humphrey supporter, why were you calling people and urging
them to support Senator Jackson ?
Mr. McMinoway. The specific instructions for that evening's com-
munique were that they took all the people that were there in the
headquarters and they put them on the phones calling people as a
desperate, last-minute effort to try to swing some more support to
Humphrey. My only instructions were to get on the telephone and
call people and urge them to get out to vote. I wasn't specifically
instructed to solicit votes for Humphrey or anything.
At this particular time, in looking back and thinking back on it,
that particular evening, I might have — Jackson might have said some-
thing I liked and I just called for him.
Senator Montoya. Well, did he I
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Did I like him ?
Senator Montoya. Did he do something that turned you over?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. He didn't convert me to Jacksonism, if that is
what you are asking.
Senator Montoya. Well, what happened? What triggered your
sudden change of loyalty as a dedicated Humphrey supporter to
Senator Jackson ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. I believe I testified to your earlier question that
I was not a dedicated Humphrey supporter. You were assuming
that.
4532 I
Senator Montoya. Were you a Humphrey supporter ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir, not in 1972. |
Senator Montoya. Why did you tell the office manager that you j
were a dedicated Humphrey supporter 'I j
]\Ir. M(^MiNowAY. I merely told her I wanted to volunteer to work. ;
She assumed- ■ 1
Senator Montoya. These are your words. I
Mr. ISIcMiNOWAY. But the conclusions you are drawinji^ here — I I
merely stated that she was convinced I was. I didn't say I had to do |
anvthing to convince her of that other than work in the campaijjn. ]
Senator Montoya. Let's go to tab 8 [exhibit No. 2:^7] . where you j
state in your summary, "I saw INIcGovern's youth coordinator' — |
this was at the Democratic National Convention —
Tom Southwiek and he mentioned to me that McGovern was orj?anizing his
own security staff. This was the highlight of the past four months. I ohtained
the name of* McGovern's top security man from Tom. I went to the Doral Hotel
headquarters and asked for Tony Borash, head security man. I introduced
myself and told Tony that Tom had sent me over for security reasons to assist
him in the office security.
Now, did Mr. Southwiek actually send you over to assist Mr.
Borash, or did you misrepresent yourself to Mr. Borash as having
been sent by Mr. Southwiek to assist him ?
Mr. McMinoway. Mr. Southwiek made the suggestion — this was
the first time I knew about the security staff, and jNIr. Southwiek in
addition to this, as I understand it now, later even called Mr. Borash
and told him that I would be an excellent choice for this security
position. I did not go over and ask for the security job.
Senator IMontoya. Now, on tab 8 [exhibit No. 237] , again you stated :
It is amazing liow easy it would Ije to he right in the midst of all the operations
and planning and yet be an enemy. Now. the woi-k I did while in Miami is
probably the best I did while I was on this assignment. The characters I had
played in the last four months are as varied as the locations T was in. Maybe
some day soon I will take the time to write about all the people I mpt and the
things they wittingly helped me to obtain information that hurt their individual
causes.
No-w, do vou think that this was ethical and proper?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, I believe my activities at that time were
ethical. If you would like for me to explain that statement, I would
be glad to do it.
Senator Montoya. Well, go ahead and please explain how playing
different varied roles for different candidates and dividing loyalties
among different candidates is proper and ethical.
Mr. McMinoway. To start, with, Senator, the playing of different
roles refers to not of deceit or deception but that the different organi-
zation staff members were stereotyped so that in the McGoveni organi-
zation most volunteer workers were young, hippie-type, protesting-type
of students. In the Humphrey camp the volunteer workers were more
of t^^e college intellectual, social fraternity-type group, and this is
Avhat is meant and implied in this particular phrase where it talks
about playing different characters and different roles, because it was
necessary when I was with Humphrey to be a little more polite, a little
more discrete, and a little bit more well-mannered.
A^Hien you were in the McGovern headquarters, you could do any-
thing you pleased and fit right in.
4533
Senator Montoya. You were set on hurting their causes, were you
not?
Mr. McMixowAY. No, sir. By hurtinof the cause, if you would refer
back to the complete context of the diary, the complete assignment
and all, by hurting their cause, it was not — this statement does not
say there was motivation to go out and hurt their cause, bvit what,
in fact, happened was by me obtaining this information, this sum-
mary was written this summer, 1973, after the fact, and in fact, from
the revelations of the committee after I had learned where the infor-
mation I obtained was going, I believe politically it hurt their cause,
but not from the standpoint of deception or any kind of espionage or
any of those activities.
Senator Montoya. That is very unusual rationalization, I might say.
My time is up. Thank you.
Senator Talmadge. Senator Weicker.
Senator "Weicker. Mr. McMinoway, I just have a few very brief
questions. Why do you think you were not challenged when you made
application to work for these various campaigns? In the discussion
with the minority counsel earlier today, specifically, I believe it was
when you attached yourself to the jNIcGovern campaign, the question
was asked as to what it would take to check you out and you indi-
cated a phone call and back to your hometown, et cetera, why do you
think that this did not happen ?
Mr. McMinoway. Well, if you take each individual case, the posi-
tion that I was placed in or that I placed myself in with the different
organizations, for instance, in Philadelphia. In Philadelphia, most of
the youth volunteers, as was the case in California, went to the Mc-
Govern headquarters. Humphrey was very, very desperate for volun-
teer workers, and I believe that, as I stated earlier, they were just
simply appreciative of the fact that I was willing to come over there
and stuff envelopes and mail this out and take charge of a group of
people that were not carrying out their job successfully.
Senator Weicker. Well, do you think it might be that here in this
country, whether your campaign happens to be a Humphrey cam-
paign or a McGovern campaign or a Xixon campaign or whatever, that
the basic assumption is that those who volunteer are not spies?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir, I believe that is a general concept in the
country.
Senator Weicker. In other words, apparently the basic assumption
is somewhat at odd to your own personal opinion, and I might add the
personal opinion of othere who have appeared before you that these
things go on all the time, because if they had been going on all the
time, they would be checked out.
Mr. McMinoway. I believe that is correct.
Senator Weicker. But, of course, if, all of a sudden now. it is thrown
out on the table to this committee and also to the American people that
it goes on all the time, then we are going to start checking each other
out pretty closely, I would say.
Mr. McMinoway. I would hope so. Senator.
Senator Weicker. Well, I would hope that we never get to that
point where in our political campaigns and in our dealings with each
other as fellow citizens that we have to check each other out.
4534
Now, a<^ain, in earlier testimony before this committee, you indi-
cated, I think it was in response to Senator Baker's question as to,
you know, what should be done, has it ever oecui'i'ed to you tliat the
public record is a perfectly ade(|uate i)la('e to check candidates out as
to their views on various issues, as to their past history, as to what they
propose for the future. Do you not think that is quite adequate, the
public record? What, in addition to the public record, should be
known by the voters ?
Mr. McMiNOWAY. Oftentimes, Senator, the public record is not an
accurate, unbiased report on the actual events, I know myself, 1 have
been victim to public press in the sense tliat when my name was first
mentioned, many of the stories and especially the rumors, leaks or what-
ever you want to call them that were circulatinfj throuo^hout the press,
have been proven by testimony before this committee and before other
leo;al authorities that they were inaccurate. In my opinion, it is neces-
sary that these things be checked out.
Senator Weicker. "Well, do you not think that a free press guarantees
the fact that the facts ai-e going to be checked out and that innocent
men are not going to be condemned out of hand by the American
people ?
]\Ir. jNIclNIixowAY. Senator, I do not mean to imply that •
Senator Weicker. Are you not having your opportunity now to
express exactly your thoughts and what you did and what you did
not do before the people of this country ?
Mr. MclNIixowAY. That is what I am doing. Senator, but I did not
mean to imply
Senator Weicker That is right.
Mr. McMixowAY [continuing]. By my earlier remark that free-
dom of the press should be restricted or anything or curtailed in any
manner. I was just merely stating that all the time, all the public
records are not always correct, and you need to check into it a little
further than just reading how a Senator voted on the floor of the
Senate on a particular bill. Sometimes there is motivation and rea-
soning behind that. That is more important than the actual vote it-
self.
Senator Weicker. Do you think the Congressional Record is a
philosopjiically-inspired document — one way or the other ?
Mr. McMixowAY. Xo, sir. But I do not believe the American pub-
lic has the time or the interest, which is the pity of the whole thing,
to read the Congressionl Record.
Senator Weicker. Do you think that a man's voting record, political
record, are adequately available to the American people regardless of
the interpretation — but the actual votes themselves?
Mr. INIcMixowAY. I think it takes
Senatoi- Weicker. I would like to know exactly what it is that is
outside the i>ublic record that should be known as to various candi-
dates. You tell me.
Mr. ]\IcMixowAY. I think the impoi-tant thing is the motivation.
As I mentioned earlier, I know of cases where actions are taken. I
sometimes have been a victiin of circumstances Avhere I had to do cer-
tain things that T would not really like to do. and I am sure certain
Senators and Congressmen vote on appropriations or on bills not
because the yes or no vote is the total aspect. I think it would be
4535
a shame for this country if people voted simply yes or no or an-
swered questions simply yes or no.
Senator Weicker. Do you think that candidates for President of
the United States answer a yes or no during the course of a poli-
tical campaign ?
INIr. McMiNOWAY. No, sir. I am not implying that.
Senator Weicker. Do you think they probably get subjected to the
most searing questions, and, I might add, in the most philosophical
sense from the left, the right, and the center. Do you think this
occurs during the course of a campaign ?
Mr. ISIcMiNowAY. Yes, sir, but I don't feel that it is adequate. I
don't think that press conference answers to questions are adequate
for the people.
Senator Weicker. Well, of course, a press conference doesn't con-
sist of the entire questioning during the course of a campaign, does
it? The candidates are subjected to questions from citizens, are they
not?
]Mr. McMiNowAY. Yes, sir; I think that is what one aspect that
television has played a vital role in American politics in the last 10
years because the candidates can't say something in New York and
then take an opposite view in California.
Senator Weicker. I suppose you have told me differently so you
and I are going to get into a dispute — but I find it difficult to believe,
because I think you have been very forthcoming with the committee
and I don't intend to get into a philosophical debate with you, but what
T can't allow to pass is the fact that apparently spying and the gather-
ing of political intelligence during the course of a campaign is some-
thing that you feel — you thought^ — not only thought was correct dur-
ing the course of this campaign, but is a proper course of action for
further campaigns, is that correct?
INIr, McMiNOw^A.!'. As the American political system stands now, I
believe it is a necessary function. I think Senator Baker
mentioned
Senator Weicker. But the way that system stands now. that system
didn't check you out. That system obviously w^as based on the assump-
tion you were not a spy just like the system of this country operates on
the basis that a man is innocent until proven guilty, and now what
you are advocating to this committee and to all of us is, that yes, we
had best check each other out and we had best determine whether a man
is innocent. It would be a rather difficult country to live in, don't you
think?
Mr. INIcjMinoway. I think you are reading into the statemient when
I said : Yes; I believe that people should be checked out. I did not say
that that was the best system. I said as it stands now, if I were a candi-
date for public office and I had staff volunteere, before I would put
them in charge of my security, I would check them out.
Senator Weicker. Well, I think quite frankly it is a far easier and
less involved process to get rid of the type of activities which you are
talking about than to enter into a mass scale checking out of each
other in the course of our activities, because what you did obviously
was the aberration, not the rule ; otlierwise when you went into Mr.
INIcGovern's headquarters and the other candidates' headquarters they
would check you out from top to bottom. But their style happens to
4536
be, I think, probably that certain idealism in the truth of candidates
and their workere alike, that those who came to volunteer their servdces,
do because of their belief in the man and what he stands for and not
because they want to go ahead and gather political intelligence. I have
no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Eiaix [presiding]. Senator Talmadge.
Senator Talmadge. Mr. McMinoway, 1 think both the staff and the
Senators have explored your activity in detail so I will attempt to be
extremely brief. Had you had previous experience in infiltrating any
campaigns prior to the Presidential election of 1972 ?
Mr. McMiNowAY. No, sir. Not of the same nature.
Senator Talmadge. That was your first endeavor?
Mr. McMinoway. Yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. If someone attempted to get you to infiltrate
another political campaign today, would you do so?
Mr. McMinoway. No, sir.
Senator Talmadge. Would you think that in the future all political
candidates and political parties mio;ht well beware of volunteers?
Mr. McMinoway. No, sir, I don't think they need be paranoia on
volunteer workers.
Senator Talmadge. You would suggest they check their credentials
rather closely though, would you not?
Mr. MclNIiNOWAY. I would suggest that people who are put in posi-
tions of high responsibility and duty be checked out or be confirmed
in their convictions.
Senator Talmadge. Thank you, sir. I have no further questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. No questions.
Senator Ervin. I have none except to say that Aesop had a fable
sometime about sheep wearing wolf's clothing or vice versa. Thank
you. That is all.
Counsel will call the next witness.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Fred Taugher.
Senator Ervin. Will you raise your right hand. Do you swear that
the evidence which you shall give to the Senate Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities shall be the truth, the whole truth.
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Taugher. I do. "
Senator Ervin. Do you have a lawyer?
TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK JOSEPH TAUGHER
Mr. Taugher. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. I take it you don't desire a lawyer.
Mr. Taugher. That is correct.
Mr. Dash. ]\Ir. Chairman, Mr. James Hamilton, assistant chief
counsel, will question this witness.
Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Taugher, would you state your full name,
please ?
Mr. Taugher. My full name is Frederick Joseph Taugher.
Mr. Hamilton. And woidd you spell your last name for the record,
please ?
4537
Mr. Taugher. Yes. The spelling is unusual, it is T-a-u-g-h-e-r.
Mr. Hamilton. "Wliat is your address?
Mr. Taugher. 6400 South Land Park Drive, Sacramento.
Mr. Hamilton. And your present employment?
Mr. Taugher. I am presently employed by the California Legisla-
ture as the Chief Administrative Officer of the Assembly.
Mr. Hamilton. What position did you hold in the campaign of Sen-
ator McGovern ?
Mr. Taugher. In the fall campaign of the general election I was
employed as the southern California campaign coordinator.
Mr. Hamilton. And what was your tenure in this position ?
Mr. Taugher. From August through early October.
Mr. Hamilton. Was the city of Los Angeles in your jurisdiction?
Mr. Taugher. Yes; it, along with, I think, five or six counties in
southern California.
Mr. Hamilton. Now, Mr. Taugher, to set the context for the ques-
tions I am going to ask you, and also for tlie questions that I am
going to ask Lieutenant Hickman who will follow you, I want to read
certain brief portions of the testimony of Mr. Haldeman who ap-
peared before this committee. First, I am reading where Mr. Haldeman
was discussing the type of prankster activity he had agreed to support.
The pranksterism that was envisioned would have specifically excluded such
acts as the following: Violent demonstrations and disruptions, heckling or shout-
ing down speakers, burning or bombing campaign headquarters, ph.vt^ical damage
or trashing of headquarters in other buildings, harassment of candidate's wives
and families by obscenities, disruption of the National Convention by splattering
dinner guests with eggs and tomatoes, indecent exposure, rock throwing, assaults
on delegates, slashing bus tires, smashing windows, setting trash fires under the
gas tank of a bus, knocking policemen from their motorcycles.
I know that this committee and most Americans would agree that such activi-
ties cannot be tolerated in a political campaign but unfortunately the activities
I had described are all activities which took place in 1972 against the campaign
of the President of the United States by his opponents.
Senator Ervin. We will have a recess, JMr. Taugher, in order to
go to vote.
[Recess.]
Senator Weicker [presiding]. The hearings will come to order, and
the n^^sistant majority counsel will proceed with the questioning.
Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Taugher. when we took that recess I was read-
ing to you brief portions of Mr. Haldeman's testimony and I would
like to continue reading this to set the context for the questions that
I am going to ask you.
I know that this committee and most Americans will agree, that such activities
cannot be tolerated in a political campaign, but unfortunately the activities I
have described are all activities which took place in 1972 against the campaign
of the President of the United States by his opponents. Some of them took place
with the clear knowledge and consent of agents of the opposing candidate in the
last election, others were acts of people who clearly — who were clearly un-
sympathetic to the President but may not have had direct orders from the
opposing camp.
Now, that ends the quotation.
Mr. Haldeman later provided testimony as to several specific events
to back up his general statement, including testimony regarding two
events that occurred in Los Angeles.
Mr. Haldeman gave as an example of the burning and bombing of
campaign headquarters an incident in Hollywood, Fairfax Avenue,
4538
where a Nixon campaign office was, and I am quoting again, "Blown
up by a bomb," and the following question and answer appeared :
Mr. Thompson. You .say .some of those in.stances took place with the clear
knowledge and consent or agreement of the opposing candidate in the last elec-
tion. Do you have any basis for that statement?
Mr. IIaldeman. I understand there is some in tJie documentation. But one
specific that comes immediately to mind of that is on the occasion of a trip to
Los Angeles at the Century Plaza Hotel at which there was a very large demon-
stration staged out in front. The handbills to notify people of this demonstra-
tion, of this planned demonstration, were to be, at what time, and that sort of
thing were handed out by the McGovern headquarters and I understand there
was a phone call program set up in McGovern headquarters there for calling
people to urge them to come and attend this demonstration.
Now, I would first like to question you regarding the Century
Plaza Hotel incident, and first, do you recall the date of that occur-
rence ?
Mr. Taugher. I believe it was September 27.
Mr. Hamilton. And what event prompted the demonstration?
Mr. Taugher. It was the visit of the President to Los Angeles where
he was beino- honored at a large fundraising dinner within the Cen-
tury Plaza Hotel. The demonstration was outside the hotel.
Mr. Hamilton. Did you attend a meeting in September prior to
the demonstration, where the demonstration was discussed?
Mr. Taugher. Yes; I did. About a week prior to the demonstra-
tion, there was a small meeting in the McGovern headquarters where
two people associated with the campaign had reported to me that the
prior night, an organizational meeting had taken place relative to a
forthcoming demonstration and they described what was planned
and asked what assistance, if any, the ISIcGovern campaign might
want to give.
Mr. Hamilton. Who were the people in this meeting?
Mr. Taugher. The two people were Mrs. Jo Seidita and Mrs. Miri-
am Ludwig.
Mr. Hamilton. Was anyone else at the meeting?
Mr. Taugher. Rick Stearns was in the meeting. He was on the
national McGovern staff and at that time, was visiting Los Angeles.
Mr. Hamilton. Was Stearns there for the entire meeting or only a
part of the meeting ?
Mr. Taugher. He was — the meeting, as a matter of fact, was un-
derway prior to my arrival between Stearns and the other two in-
dividuals. I came into the meeting late. I do not — franldy, I do not
recall how long he stayed. For some period of time, though, the four
of us did discuss the forthcoming demonstration. He may have left
before I did, I am not sure.
Mr. Hamilton. Would you tell the committee who INIrs. Ludwig and
Mrs. Seidita are, what organizations they are affiliated with ?
Mr, Taugher. ]\rrs. Seidita was an employee of the southern Cali-
fornia McGoA'ei-n campaign. Mrs. Ludwig was associated with the cam-
paign and had a long experience of activity with various j^eace-
oriented organizations in southern California.
Mr. PlA:\riLTON. Xow, at that meeting, were you told who the people
were that were sponsoring and organizing the Century Plaza demon-
stration ?
Mr. Taugher. It was my understanding from them that the sponsors
consisted of a coalition of various peace organizations that had con-
4539
ducted activities in the past in the Los Angeles area. It was described
to me as a very responsible group consisting of the professional people,
members of the clergy, responsible individuals. They were nonviolent
and responsible.
Mr. Hamilton. Was there any indication at this meeting that the
demonstration to be held at the Century Plaza would be less than
peaceful ?
Mr. Taugher. No. We were very careful to discuss the precautions
that were being taken to make sure that it was a peaceful demonstra-
tion, and I was satisfied on the basis of the information that they gave
me that it would be a peaceful demonstration.
Mr. Hamilton. Were you aware that the organizers of the demon-
stration had secured the services of a number of monitors to preserve
order at the demonstration ?
Mr. Taugher. Yes ; I was.
Mr. Hamilton. Now, during this meeting, was it proposed that the
McGovern ])hone banks in the Los Angeles headquarters would be used
to solicit demonstrators to come to this demonstration ?
Mr. Taugher. Yes.
Mr. Hamilton. Do you recall who made this proposal?
Mr. Taugher. I do not recall specifically whether the proposal came
from one of the others or whether I volunteered it. I was interested in
assisting the demonstration in some way provided it would not inter-
fere with any of the higher priority activities of the campaign. We
did have a telephone bank in the headquarters that was not being used
at that point in time. So during that meeting, I did agree that our
phone bank would be available to tlie sponsors of the demonstration
but that we could not provide any manpower or any other sort of assist-
ance and that if the organizers of the demonstration wanted to recruit
their own people to use those phones to call persons on their own lists
to encourage them to attend the demonstration, it was agreeable with
us.
INIr. Hamilton. So it was your decision, then, that the phone banks
could be used, is that correct ?
Mr. Taugher. That is correct.
Mr. Hamilton. And did this decision receive approval from those
higher up in the campaign than you ?
Mr. Taugher. Yes: to the extent that Rick Stearns was at the meet-
ing and lie agreed with this program that we came up with.
Mr. Hamilton. He did indicate that this proposal had his ap-
proval ? Is that correct ?
Mr. Taugher. Correct, yes.
Mr.HAMiLTON. Now. were these phone banks actually used ?
Mr. Taugher. Yes, they were, I believe for 2 successive nights.
Mr. Hamilton. How many phones were involved ?
Mr. Taughfj?. I do not recall precisely. I would guess, though, that
in the room that we used for the telephone bank, we probably had 12
or 15 phones.
Mr. Hamilton. And durinc: these two nights that the phones Avere
used, were they fully occupied ?
Mr. Taugher. I think so, yes. There may be a couple of phones that
went unused.
Mr. Hamilton. Were the phones manned by the people who were
sponsoring the demonstration as you had required ?
4540
Mr. Taugiier. Yes, they were.
Mr. ITamiltox. Do you know if any INIcGovern staff workers made
any cnlls to solicit demonstrators ?
Mr. Taltgher. No, they did not. We were interested in the Mc-
Govern staff workers to concentrate on our voter regfistration drive
and for tiiat reason I did not want tliem to participate in the effort.
Mr. Hamilton. Wliat lists were used to make the phone calls?
Mr. Taugiier. Lists that were compiled by the people sponsoring
the demonstration. I belie\-e on their lists, they had names of persons
who had in the past attended various activities sponsored by one or
another of the groups that made up the coalition.
Mr. Hamilton. Were any of the McGovern lists used for this
j)urpose?
Mr. Taugiier. No, 1 specifically told them that we would not allow
them to use our lists and that we would be calling the names on those
lists for other activities and we did not want to overkill. We did not
want to wear out our own supporters for things that were not of high
priority.
Mr. Hamilton. Were the persons called told that the demonstra-
tion was part of the JSrcGovein campaign activity ?
Mr. Taugiier. Frankly, I do not know.
Mr. Hamilton. Do you know if the callers were told that the calls
were coming from McGovern headquarters?
]\rf. Taugiier. I do not know that, either.
Mr. Hamilton. T believe you testitied that these phone banks were
used for two nights. For how long each night were the banks in
operation?
Mr. Taugiier. As far as I recall, it must have been from about 6
o'clock to 9 o'clock or thereabouts. Generally, from the dinner hours
to 0 or 9 :30 is the acceptable time for phoning in Los Angeles.
Mr. Hamilton. Why were the banks not used longer than 2 days?
INIr. Taugiier. Because after the second night, w-e were informed
that Senator McGovern would be visiting Los Angeles on the follow-
ing week and so we then needed to use those telephones to call our own
lists of supporters to encourage them to attend an event that we were
sponsoring for his appearance.
Mv. Hamilton. Now, did any IMcGovern staff worker help distribute
leaflets announcing this demonstration and encouraging attendance?
Mv. Taugiier. Only to a very minimal extent. The sponsors of the
demonstration printed up a large number of leaflets and asked for our
assistance in distributing them. I told them that I felt that any massive
distribution would interfere with our other activities, but that we
would be ngi'eeable to i)lacing a small number of leaflets in each of our
storef I'ont quarters for the information of the people that came to those
headquarters.
Mr. Hamilton. How many storefronts would that involve ?
Mr. Taugiier. Well, I would think that about that time in the
southern California area, we must have had 100 or more storefronts.
I do not know precisely how- many of them received those leaflets,
because they were only given out in instances where a storefront came
to the headquarters to pick up a regular order of McGovern literature
and we did not make any special effort to get the leaflets to head-
quarters unless we had some other reason for a contact.
4541
Mr. Hamiltox. Would you estimate that leaflets were distributed in
over half of the storefronts ?
Mr, Taugiier. If I had to guess, I would say approximately half of
the storefronts probably received them.
Mr. Hamiltox. Was the distribution of these leaflets approved at
the same meeting; where the use of the j^hone banks was approved?
Mr. Taugiier. I think so. I think if not at the same meeting, it was
later that afternoon.
Mr. Hamiltox. Do you recall if ]Mr. Stearns participated in the
decision to distribute leaflets?
Mr. Taugiier. It is likely that he may not have been there at that
time.
Mr. Hamiltox. Now, did any INIcGovern staff' worker place or pay
for advertisements announcing the demonstration?
Mr. Taugher. No.
Mr. Hamiltox. Did any McGovern staff worker participate in
the making and distribution of signs or placards to be used in the
demonstration?
Mr. Taugher. No, not at all.
Mr. Hamiltox. Were callers to the McGovern headquarters, people
who called in. told how to reach the demonstration and given instruc-
tions to bring a sign to the demonstration ?
Mr. Taugher. No.
Mr. Hamiltox. Did you attend this rally, Mr. Taugher ?
Mr. Taugher. No, I did not go.
]\Ir. Hamiltox. To your knowledge, did any McGovern staff mem-
bers attend ?
Mr. Taugher. Only one person who I can think of specifically, and
she did attend and returned to the headquarters right aftenvard and
described for me what happened.
Mr. Hamiltox. To your knowledge, did any McGovern staff worker
suggest that the rally should take a violent turn ?
Mr. Taugher. No, not at all.
Mr. Hamiltox. Have you admitted in the public record that McGov-
ern phone banks were used to contact potential demonstrators?
Mr. Taugher. Yes.
Mr. Hamiltox. And when did you do this?
Mr. Taugher. I believe it was between the time that we ceased
using — allowing the use of the phones and the time of the demonstra-
tion itself. It came in response to inquiries and Ave did admit that we
had used the phones.
Mr. Hamiltox. So it was in the public record before the demonstra-
tion took place?
Mr. Taugher. Yes, it was.
Mr. Hamiltox. Now, as the campaign coordinator for southern Cali-
fornia, did you issue an apology for this activity ?
Mr. Taugher. Absolutely not.
Mr. Hamiltox. Why did you not issue an apology ?
Mr. Taugher. I don't think there is anything to apologize for. I
think it was a proper activity.
Mr. Hamiltox. AVas the campaign, the ^NFcGovern campaign, asked
by the California Committee for the Re-Election of the President to
post a million dollar bond to cover the damages that might occur at
the demonstration?
4542
Mr. Taugher. Yes.
Mr. Hamiltox. IVliat was their response to this ?
Mr. Taugher. There was no response.
INIr. PIamii>ton. No response ?
Mr. Taugher. We did not respond.
Mr. Hamilton. Now, turning to the second incident that was re-
ferred to by INIr. Haldeman in the testimony that I read to you, when
did you first learn of the so-called Hollywood bombing?
Mr. Taugher. The morning after, I heard a news report or saw
something in the newspaper to the extent that a Nixon headquarters
in Hollywood did have a fire.
Mr. Hamilton. Do you have any knowledge now as to the date of
that incident?
IMr. Taugher. Around September 16th, September 17th, thereabouts,
I think.
j\Ir. Hamilton. And do you have any firsthand knowledge of that
incident?
Mr. Taugher. None whatsoever.
Mr. Hamilton. We are going to receive evidence in a minute from
Lt. Hickman, who is sitting behind you, as to what occurred in that
incident, but I have one further question to ask you. To your knowl-
edge, was any McGovern staff per-son involved in any way in this so-
called ])ombing at the Nixon headquarters?
Mr. Taugher. Certainly not.
Mr. PIamilton. Mr. Chairman, I have no further qeustions.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taugher, as I understand it, you were the southern California
campaign coordinator for Senator McGovern?
INIr. I'augher. That is correct.
Mr. Thompson. Rich Stearns whom you mentioned, what was his
position ?
Mr. Taugher. His position was — I am not sure of the exact title,
but essentially Western States coordinator.
Mr. Tho:mpson. Do you know how many States he served as
coordinator for?
Mr. Taugher. I think ]:>robably most of the States west of the
Rockies. I think he also had Texas and maybe some others.
]\rr. Thompson. Wlio would lin ve been his superior ?
Mr, Taugher. Gary Hart, I believe.
Mr. Thompson. And he was at the meeting that you referred to
where the agreement to assist the antiwar demonstrators was made?
]\rr. Tat'oih-R. Ricli Stearns was tliore : yes.
Mr. Thompson. And so was Mary Jo Seidita ?
Mr. Taugher. Correct.
Mr. Thompson. A'SHiat was her position in the McGovern campaiirn ?
Mr. Taugher. She was our director of special organizations. That
is, her responsibility was to coordinate the activities of special com-
mittees— teachers' groups, other professional groups, groups of people
that were united by some common interest such as equal rights
organizations.
Mr. Thoimpson. Was this a salaried position ?
Mr. Taugher. Yes, it was.
4543
Mr. Thompson. Miriam Ludwig, what was her position with the
McGovern campaign ?
Mr. Taugiier. She served essentially as our liaison under Jo Seidita's
direction, as our liaison with various peace-oriented organizations in
the southern Calf ornia area.
Mr. Thompson. Where did this meeting take place ?
Mr. Taugher. The meeting in which we participated ?
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Taugher. In McGovern headquarters in an office adjoining my
own office.
Mr. Thompson. Whose office?
Mr, Taugher. It was an office assigned to Barbara McKenzie, who
was a deputy to Rick Stearns.
Mr. Thompson. Was she a resident representative for the national
campaign in California ?
Mr. Taugher. That is right, yes.
Mr. Thompson. Was Barbara McKenzie present during this meeting?
Mr. Taugher. I don't believe she was. She may have been in and out,
but I have no specific recollection of her being there.
Mr. Thompson. How was the subject brought up and who brought
it up ?
Mr. Taugher. I am not sure how it first came up. As I said a few
moments ago, the meeting was underway at the time I walked in. The
two women were discussing with Rick their attendance at the prior
night's organizational meeting and as I came in, he turned to me and
brought me up to date on what they had discussed up to that point.
Mr. Thompson. Where had they held this prior organizational meet-
ing referred to the prior night ?
Mr. Taugher, At the Methodist Church, I think, on Wilshire Boule-
vard, It was in Los Angeles.
Mr. Thompson. Who attended that meeting from McGovern head-
qua iters?
Mr. Taugher. My understanding is that Mrs. Ludwig was there. I
don't know for sure whetlier Mrs. Seidita was there or not.
Mr, Thompson. Do you know of any other individuals who attended
that meeting, either with the McGovern campaign or not with the
McGovern campaign ?
Mr. Taugher. No, I don't,
Mr. Thompson. Do you know any organizations, particular organi-
zations that were represented at that meeting?
Mr. Taugher. I don't recall any specifically by name now.
Mr. Thompson. I have here a page from the Los Angeles Free Press.
It is published every Friday and dated September 22 to October 2,
1972. October 2 was a Friday. It lists several groups. Among those
participating in the meeting — referring, evidently, to this meeting in
the church referred to before — the Women's Strike for Peace, Another
Mother for Peace, Peace Action Council. October 14 Coalition. Na-
tional Peace Action Coalition, Vietnam Veterans Against the War,
Individuals Against the War, Bar Sinister, National Lawyers Guild,
Los Angeles Anti-War Defense Conmiittee, Students for a Democratic
Societv. Vietnamese Student I^nion for Peace, American Civil Liber-
ties Lfnion, Women for Socialist Workers Party, Progressive Labor
Party, Echo Park, Silver Lake Food Conspiracy, Women Against the
4544
AYar, Yoiiiiir Socialists Alliance. Student ]\robilization Committee.
Indo-China Peace Campaifnu Pentao:on Papers Project. Citizens
Research Investigratino: Committee, West Side Peace Committee, Set
the Date, as well as various reli<iious o-roups, and George McGovern
campaigners.
Are you familiar with any of these gi-oups ?
Mr. "Tai^chkr. I am familiar with a number of them by name. One
of the assistant minority counsel several weeks aoo described that
article to me. On the basis of the information that tlie representatives
from our campaign gave me in our meeting, on the basis of the demon-
stration, the actual demonstration and how it took place, I frankly
find it difficult to believe that that is a correct accounting of who was
at tliat meeting.
Mr. TiroMrsoN. If this had been a correct accounting and you had
known about it, would it have caused you some concern ?
Mr. Taugiier. Yes, it certainly would have. If I had Icnown for snre
or had any reason to believe that some of the organizations listed
there had been at the organizational meeting, I would not have lent
the assistance of the INIcGovern campaign. I only lent the assistance
of the campaign because I was reasonably certain on the basis of the
information that I had that it would be a peaceful demonstration.
Mr. TiioaiPSON'. Why would you have withheld assistance had you
known about some of these gi'oui)S?
Mr. Taugiier. Because some of these groups, in my opinion, have
a history of violent activities.
Mr. TiioMPSOx. All right. There was a demonstration against a
]-)rior President in the previous election, was thei^e not, in the same
place?
Mr. Taugiier. No, that was not during a campaiixn, that was in
1967.
INIr. TuoiMPSOx. That is correct, 1967. Against President Johnson?
INIr. Taugher. That is right.
Mr. Thompson. It was also at the Century Plaza, is that right?
Mr. Taugiier. That is right.
Mr. Thompsox. Did it also jirotest the war?
Mr. Taitgiter. Yes, it did. Thei'e was some violence at that demon-
stration. I did not paiticipate in it. I was a guest at the dinner that
evening and I was inside the hotel. I did not see any of the demon-
strators myself, but I read the news accounts and saw tele\ised cover-
age of i)arts of the demonstration. From that experience, I was cei'tain
that i)recautions were taken then and precautions would be taken
again this time to protect the President and all the guests of the hotel.
So, I was not concerned to that extent.
But the demonstration that you have just now referred to in 1967
was 5 years )irior to the one that we are speaking about here, involving
a different time and a lot of different individuals, so I saw no reason
to think that because in 1067, this was a demonstration over the same
issiie at the same IcK-ation. that thei'e would be any reason to conclude
that we would once acain have violent activity.
Mr. Tiio:mpsox. What do you lecall happening in 1968 at the Cen-
tuiT Plaza?
Mr. Taugher. I do not recall any specifics. I know there was a lot of
pushing and shoving and some of the demonstrators were jailed,
and
4545
Mr. TiroMPSON. Destruction of property?
Mr. Taugker. I do not think so, althoug-li I do not recall for sure.
Mr. Thompson. But it was enough to
Mr. Taugher. They wei-e all contained on the street, none of the
demonstiutors entered the hotel.
JNIr. TiiOMPSOx. There was enougli to cause you some concern when
you were talking about this demonstration that the same thing did not
happen again, is that correct ?
]\Ir. Taugher. I was naturally concerned tliat we not have any vio-
lent activity. I do not see how that would further our cause in any way
or do anyone any good.
]Mr. Thompson. Did you make any inquiry from ]\Iary Jo Seidita
or ]\[iriam Ludwig as to what groups they were planning the demon-
stration with?
'Mv. Tai'gher. She named for me some of the groups and each of the
groups that she named were ones that I recognized to be responsible
grou])S. We discussed the monitoi'ing system whereby there would be
parade marshals and parade routes. We discussed that there would be
an official liaison with the Los Angeles Police Department, and I
included
^Ir. TiiOMPSOx. And it turned out to be a peaceful demonstration,
did it not?
^fr. Tai'ghee. To my knowledge, it was one of the most peaceful.
Mr. TiioMPSox. "Would it he accurate to say that you took the chance
on a possible viok'ut demonstration thinking that it would not be, and
in fact, your chance proved well taken ?
INIr. Taugher. I do not think that is quite accurate. The demonstra-
tion was going to take place whether we participated in it or not.
Mr. TiiOMPSOx. That has nothing to do with the propensity for
violence, does it, as to whether or not you participated in it ?
Mr. Taugher. No.
Mr. Thompson. You were concerned that there be no violence. You
knew in lOGT that a similai' demonstration there had been violent ?
Mr. Taugher. That is right.
IMr. Thompson. In the same place for the same cause against the
President of the Ignited States.
Mr. TatTxHI':r. That is right.
Mv. Thompsox. So would it not be correct to say, ]:)ased upon the
information that you were furnished on the nature of the people par-
ticipating, that you took a chance that it would not be violent?
]Mr. Tai'gher. There is always a risk when there is any sort of group
activity, I think, that there will be violence.
ISIr. Thompsox. Your answer would be yes ?
]\Ir. Taugher. So my answer would be yes, we did take a chance to
that extent.
Mr. Tho:mpson. All right.
Mr. Taioher. I^ut we took every reasonable precaution to make sure
there would be no violence.
Mr. Thompson. What precautions did you personally take?
^Ir. Taugher. I did not take any direct action myself. As I said,
I did not consider the demonstration to be our campaign activity.
Mr. Thompson. In your discussions did you not conclude that this
would help the campaign to rekindle the interest in the war?
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 12
4546
Mr. Taugiier. That is right. T did feel tlmt a successful demonstra-
tion on that issue would be of benefit to the campaign.
Mr. TiiOMPSOx. And they originally, I believe, asked you for other
assistance in the demonstration and you turned them down; is that
correct ?
Mr. Taugiier. That is right.
Mr. Thompson-. And the reason you turned them down was because
you had a manpower problem?
Mr. Taugiier. We had higher priorities at that time as to what we
should do with our campaign personnel and resources.
Mr. Tiio^rpsoN. So you agreed to let them use your phone bank of
12 to 15 telephones?
Mr. Taugiier. That is right. j
Mr. Thompson. And you agreed to let them distribute fliers adver- 1
tising the demonstration ? j
Mr. Taugiier. To distribute fliers on to the extent where it would not |
utilize our manpower in doing so.
Mr. Thompson. Would it be accurate to say that fliers advertising the I
demonstration were distributed to approximately 100 headquarters |
offices ?
Mr. Taugher. I would guess probably they got to about 50 head-
quarters offices and in each instance there was probably no more than I
15 or 20 fliers at those 50 offices. I think the number of fliers that were
distributed by our camDai<rn was a very small percentage, probably of
all of the fliers distributed.
Mr. Thompson. Why would there only be 15 — 10 or 15 fliers?
Mr. Taugiier. Because it was not our intention to massively distrib-
ute those fliers. It was our intention simply to put the fliers on a table
of literature near the door so that people coming into the headquarters,
for one reason or another, would be made aware of the demonstration
and could attend it if they wished to do so.
We did not want to take any of the manpower from that headquarters
and have it distributed at shopping centers or door-to-door or any-
thing of that sort.
Mr. Thompson. Was there an effort, then, to place a limitation on
the number of fliers in the headquarters ?
Mr. Taugher. Yes. We did not
Mr. Thompson. "Wliy, if you thought it was the thing to do and it
would not require anv more manpower for you to liave a thousand?
Mr. Tat*gher. Well, T think it would have been a waste of printing
to put a thousand fliers near the front door when we did not expect
heavy traffic in those headquarters.
Mr. Thompson. Would that not be a decision for those primarily
organizing tlie demonstration to make?
]\Ir. Taugiier. No. T think it is — the use of the McGovern campaign
lu'nd(|UMrters is ])roiiorly a decision of tlie cam])aign manaa'ement.
]\ri-. Thompson. I am talking about whether or not certain materials
would l)e Avasted. Were you concerned as to the organizers of this
demonstration wastino; their own material ?
^Ir. Taugher. Well, no, T supppose that decision is properly theirs.
There was in my judgment, though, a danger that if we distributed
an excessive mimber of fliers to one of our headquarters that the per-
sonnel in that headquarters Avould take it upon themselves to take
4547
time away from their voter registration activities and begin to dis-
tribute those fliers on their own.
Mr. Thompson. So you felt if there were a few fliers lying around the
l:eadquarters, workers would not be tempted to go out and distribute
them 'i But if you had too many there, your workers would be tempted
to go out and distribute them, even possibly contrary to instructions?
Mr. Taugher. That is correct.
Mr. Thompson. Is that your feeling on it?
Mr. Taugher. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Do you know whether or not any of the same people
who organized the demonstration at the Century Plaza in 1972 were
also some of the same people who organized the demonstration against
President Johnson in 1967 ?
Mv. Taugher. I think it is likely that, in a demonstration of that
size, there probably were a number of people who participated in the
organization of those.
Mr. Thompson. Did you inquire specifically when the proposal was
being put out as to whether or not there were certain groups or indi-
viduals who had promoted this demonstration that turned out to be
a violent encounter ?
Mr. Taugth.r. No. I did not because, like I say, on the basis of our
conversations about what precautions were being taken for the 1972
demonstration, I was satisfied that those precautions would — those
steps were being followed through, and there would be no chance for
any violence such as in 1967.
Mr. Thompson. No chance. How many demonstrators showed up
there, I heard estimates from 6,000 to 10,000.
Mr. Taugher. I do not know. I have heard estimates from 3,000
:to 8,000. 1 do not know how many were there.
Mr. Thompson. Is it your opinion if you have this many people in-
-volved, that, if you take certain precautions you can prevent a demon-
:stration from becoming violent if certain of those individuals desire
to be violent ?
INIr. Taugher. No.
Mr. Thompson. No one is arguing with the fact that it was a non-
violent demonstration. I am more interested in the position you were
in there when you made the decision to go ahead and let the McGovern
lorganization do this to the extent that you described.
Mr. Taugher. I think there is always — there is no way to absolutely
[guarantee a nonviolent activity.
Mr. Thompson. But if you have a history of a prior demonstration
at the same location, and the same cause, would you not say there would
be a little bit greater likelihood of violence in a similar demonstration
against another President for the same cause ?
Mr. Taugher. No; I do not think the location, the fact that is was a
similar location, was a factor at all.
]Mr. THo:NrpsoN. The fact that similar individuals would be involved
in jiromoting it ?
Mr. Taugher. I think that similar — some of the same individuals
who participated in the 1967 demonstration would likely participate
in any similar demonstration anywhere in the Los Angeles area. I
think the fact that it was at the Century Plaza Hotel for a second time
had nothing to do with it.
4548
Mr. Thompson. You don't think there was any more likelihood for a
violent demonstration
Mr. Tauoiier. No.
Mr. Thompson [continuing] . At the Century Plaza j I
Mr. Taugher. No, I don't. |,l
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. Than in New Orleans or anywhere ]f
else in liglit of the fact that the only other prior demonstration that I [
know of , of that size, that dimension, did produce violence. You don't j
think there is any greater likelihood of violence in this case than if it J
had been in another city ?
Mr. Taugher. No.
IVIr. Thompson. That was in your mind at the time you agreed
Mr. Tauoher. At the time I agreed to lend the help of the INIcGovern
campaign to promote that demonstration, I was reasonably certain
that there woidd be no violence — and there was none.
Mr. Thompson. You stated that the telephone, the use of the tele-
phone, was discontinued shortly after that.
Mr. Taugher. That is correct ; yes.
Mr. Thompson. And that decision was made because Senator Mc-
Govern, I believe, was coming to town and you needed the manpower
to rally support for him when he arrived ?
Mr. Taugher. That is right.
Mr. Thompson. You needed the telephone ?
Mr. Taugher. That is right. It was our practice whenever he came
to Los Angeles to phone names on lists that we had to encourage them
to attend the event at which he would be appearing.
Mr. Thompson. All right. I am referring now to a story in the Wash-
ington Post of September 24, 1972, which says "Anti-War Use of
^McGovern Phones Ends." Let me ask you this first: When the story
broke about the fact that McGovem phones were being used, did any-
one in the McGovern campaign besides the ones vou had been dealing
with inquire of you as to how this had come about?
Mr. Taugher. Yes. The statewide communications director for the
campaign asked me what we had done and how it came about, and I
gave him essentially the same infoT-mation I am giving you today.
Mr. Thompson. Who was that individual ?
Mr. Taugher. His name is Lew Hass.
Mr. Thompson. And you told him that you had a meeting and that
you had discussed it ancl you decided to approve it ?
Mv. Taugher. That is correct.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Steams participated and he approved it?
Mr. Taugher. That is correct.
Mr. Thompson. And that the telephones were used and that head-
quartei-s were used to place certain fliere advertising the demonstra-
tion, you explained all this to him?
Mr. Taugher. Yes; I did.
Mr. Thompson. Who is :Mr. Fred Epstein ?
Mr. Taugher. He wjis the press secretary in the campaign and he
repoi-ted to Lew Hass. He is the one in the campaign who frequently
fielded questions from reporters if they would call the headquarters
for information.
Mr. Thompson. Did you talk to Mr. Epstein about this?
Mr. Taugher. No ; I did not.
4549
Mr. Thompson. Do you know whether anyone else there at head-
quarters talked to JNIr, Epstein about it?
Mr. Taugher. I don't know.
Mr. Thompson. In the natural course of events, if Mr. Hass had
come to you and asked for information, would he then impart it to
Mr. Epstein for his-
Mr. Taugher. Probably so.
Mr. Thompson. Let me read this article; it says:
Anti-war activists used telepliones at tlie local campaign headquarters of
democratic Presidential candidate George McGovern for two nights to promote
a planned demonstration against President Xixon, a McGovern spokesman says.
But McGovern campaign officials have told the activists they cannot use their
telepliones any longer, the spokesman, Fred Epstein said.
"I don't know who allowed them to use the phones or who told them to stop,"
Epstein said today. "It probably was some overzealous person in the campaign.
"Once I knew it was not going on any longer I didn't pursue trying to find
out who was responsible," Epstein said. "The important thing is that the anti-war
activists no longer are using the McGovern phones."
It ai^i^ears that Mr. Epstein felt, or that the official position of the
McGovern campaign at that time was that it was not a wise or proper
thing to use McGovern telephones to promote a massive demonstration
against the President.
Would you say that is a fair characterization of his position at that
time or what the McGovern position was ?
Mr. Taugher. Lew Hass and I disagreed on the use of the phones.
It is possible that the story which you have just quoted is a story
written after a reporter asked Fred Epstein questions directly, and
that it is not as the result of a printed release that we put out, I am
not sure which is the case. But from the language in there I would con-
elude that it was probably the result of direct inquu-ies to him, and he
may have responded before fully checking it out.
Mr. Thompson. In other words, he might have been misrepresenting
the McGovern position in California anyway at that time as to whether
or not
Mr. Taugher. It misrepresented my position, yes.
Mr. Thompson. Your position ?
Mr. Taugher. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. Were you the one to set the policy in a matter like
that?
Mr. Taugher. Essentially, yes, although Lew has had overall state-
wide responsibility for all ))ress relations.
;Mr. Thompson. What about Rick Stearns. You were responsible to
him, were you not ?
Mr. Taugher. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Thompson. Did you get an expression from him or do you know
if Mr. Hass did with regard to the wisdom or propriety of using Mc-
Govern phones to help promote a massive demonstration against the
I President?
Mr. Taugher. As I said earlier Eick Stearns was present at the meet-
ing at which we discussed this. In the normal course of events I would
not have, however, checked it with him. I felt that I had the authority
in my i^osition to authorize the use of those phones. He was no longer
in the State at the time that these press stories were out.
Mr. Thompson. Who was not ?
Mr. Taugher. Rick was not.
4550
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Stearns.
Mr. TAroHER. And T did not talk to liim an}^ more about it after that
initial ineotin^. I don't know whether Lew has it or not.
Mr. TiioMPSOX. It ai)i)ears Mr. Hass shares Mr. Ei:)stein's opinion
anyway in an article in the Washinoton Post dated Wednesday, Oc-
tober 3, 1973. entitled "GOP Probers Seeking 'Dirty Tricks' of Foes,''
they quote Mr. Epstein as saying :
As reported in October 1972 the oflScial of McGovern's California campaign
denied a Repul)lican charge that the demonstrators had been permitted to use
the phones. Tlie official, Lew Hass, acknowledged that the demonstrators had. in
fact, used the phones. "When we found out about it we stopped it immediately."
Mr. Taugiier. "Well, that is not correct.
Mr. TiroMrsox. But that correctly expresses his opinion, does it not.
that it was an improper thing to do; would that not be a fair char-
acterization of it?
Mr. Taugher. That is true but the phones were stopped for a dif-
ferent reason than that.
Mr. Thompson. That is a second matter I wanted to ask you about.
First of all. Mr. Epstein says it was probably some overzealous person
in the campaign.
Would it not be fair to say that that implied that there was no
previous knowledge by any McGovern staffers with regard to the
use of the phone bank ?
Mr. Taugher. I think if I read that story I Avould make the same
assumption that is not the case.
IMr. Thompson. That leaves the w^rong impression, does it not ?
Mr. Taugiier. It certainly does.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Hass' statement here that "When we ^ found
out about it we stopped it immediately''; as a matter of fact, the rea-
son you stop]:)ed it was because Senator McGovem was coming to town
and you needed the phones for something else ?
Mr. Taugiier. That is right.
]Mr. Thompson. So INIr. Hass' story is not correct in that regard, is it ?
Mr. Tax^gher. I do not consider it a correct interpretation under
the circumstances.
Mr. Thompson. And he knew better, did he not ?
Mr. Taugiier. I don't know whether he knew better at the time that
he made that statement, but we did have a discussion on a Saturday
morning, I believe, relative to the use of the phone banks.
Mr. Thompson. And you told him that you had planned it, that
you had approved it.
Mr. Taugiier. Yes.
!Mr. Thompson. That you had authorized it. Rick Stearns had au-
thorized it.
]Mr. Tai^giier. Yes.
^Ir. Thompson. What did he say to you at that time?
Mr. Taugiier. He said that he thought that we should not have done
it because of the potential danger from the press point of view.
Mr. Thompson. Did he indicate to you as to how he was going to
respond to the press inquiries about McGovern involvement ?
Mr. Taugiier. He did not as I recall, no conclusions were reached at
that meeting.
Mr. Thompson. Would you say that putting out a story that it
was probably some overly zealous person and that as soon as it was
4551
found out, it was stopped immediately, would be an attempted cover-
up of what actually happened ?
]\Ir. Taugiier. It might have been.
Mr. Thompsox. IVIr. Chairman, I have certain photographs here
which I understand the next witness has identified. If there is no
disagreement to admitting them in the record, I think it might be
more appropriate to admit the pictures into the record right now, al-
though I understand that this particular witness does not identify
them. If there is no objection, I will put these into the record at
this time.
]Mr. Hamiltox. ]Mr. Thompson, I don't have any objection to these
pliotographs going into the record. I would like to know their source.
Mr. TiioMPsox. The source is the White House photogra])her who
was on the scene and took these photographs and supplied them to
us at our request.
Senator Ervix. Without objection, the photographs will be admitted
in evidence as exhibits and appropriately numbered as such.
[The documents referred to were marked exhibits Xos. 229A, 229B,
229C. and 2291).*]
Mr. TiiOMPSox. I will just refer to these briefly one at a time. As
I stated, it is my understanding that with minor exceptions, a little
rock throwing, a little egg throwing, perhaps, it did not get out of
of hand, that it was a nonviolent demonstration.
INIr. Taugiier. I am not even aware of the rock throwing and the
Qgg throwing.
]Mr. Tiio]MPSox. Well, we can supply it if it becomes an issue.
This photograph [exhibit No. 229A] depicts signs, "$1,000 a plate
for war and hate." ''Nixon and Thieu blood-brothers," with a swas-
tika sign on one side.
One demonstrator is holding what appears to be a Vietcong flag
and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War have a banner prominently
displayed in this particular photograph.
The second photogra])h [exhibit No. 229B1 shows signs, demonstra-
tors, "Stop the War, Stop the Murder, Stop Nixon."
"Republicans for McGovern."
Another ])hotograph [exhibit No. 2290] shows demonstrators hold-
ing up a "McGovern-Shriver 1972" sign with part of a Nixon signi
with skull and crossbones on that particular sign.
Here is another ])hotograph [exhibit No. 229D] with a sign which
can only be described as very vulgar and obscene. I won't repeat it, but
I will make it a part of the record.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further (juestions at this time. Thank you.
Senator Ervix. This demonsti-ation in connection with which
phones in the McGovern headquartei's were used was in September
1972 and near the Century Plaza Hotel ?
Mr. Taugiier. That is right.
; Senator Ervix. That was the hotel at which President Nixon was to
make a speech that evening?
Mr. Taugher. That is correct, ves. sir.
Senator Ervix. And did the ]\IcGovern headquarters do anything
in connection with it except to authorize tlie use of the telephones
and to distribute within its own headquarters certain fliers?
*See pp. 4699-4702.
4552
Mr. Taugher. These are the only two actions that we took to sup-
port the demonstrations.
Senator Ervin. Now, the first amendment says :
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peacefully to
assemble and to i)etition the Government for redress of grievances.
Was this demonstration peaceful ?
Mr. Taugher. My understanding- is that it was a peaceful demon-
stration, yes, sir.
Senator ER\^N. Did they petition the President for an end to the
war in Vietnam by the placards and so forth ?
Mr. Taugiiek. Yes; I would say so; although, as I understand it, he
probably did not see the demonstrators because of the way that he
arrived at the hotel and the area which the demonstrators were con-
fined to.
Senator Ervix. But the White House photographer evidently saw
the demonstration, because he took some photograi^hs. i
Mr. Taugher. I think he got the message about the war.
Senator Ervin. Now, did you see anything in this demonstration
which could not be properly construed as the exercise of the first
amendment right by those demonstrating peacefully to assemble and
to petition the Government for redress of grievances?
Mt'. Taugher. Well, some of the signs as described by Mr. Thompson
are personally repugnant to me, and I think to most people, but over-
all, the huge majority of the demonstrators peacefully and quietly
demonstrated and petitioned the President regarding an issue that
they felt very strongly about.
Senator Ervin. And demonstrating is an old American pastime, isn't ,
it?
ISIr. Taugher.. It certainly is.
Senator Ervix. I never demonstrate, but some people seem to get a!
peculiar pleasure out of it.
That is all.
Senator Weicker.
Senator Weicker. I have no questions.
Senator ER\^x. Senator Inouye.
Senator Ixouye. I just have one question, sir.
Mr. Taugher, in your meeting on September 21, 1972, where the!
decision to use the phone banks was made, was the matter of violence
ever discussed? 1
Mr. Tai-giier. It was discussed to the extent that we reviewed the 1
steps that the oi-ganizers of the demonstration would take in order j
to prevent violence. i
Senator Ixouye. AAHiat were these precautions or steps which were ,
taken ?
Mr. Taugher. I am not sure of all of them. Essentially, they were
going to appoint parade monitors, a very high number of them, a
close ratio of monitors to demonstrators. They were going to have a
pi-escribed parade route in front of the hotel. They had made an of-
ficial connection with the Los Angeles Police Department. They had
made the hotel aware of tlieii- intention to demonstrate. I don't know
if you are familiar with the hotel, but the area where the demonstra-
tion took place was on a broad street in front of tlie hotel. There is
easy access for hotel guests from another direction so there would not
4553
be any point of confrontation. It was. in my opinion, ideally orijanized
to prevent any violent incidents.
Senator Ixouye. So this was a well publicized demonstration?
Mr. Taigher. Yes; it had — —
Senator Inouye. And were you satisfied that the hotel was in fact
notified ?
Mr. Taugiier. Only to the extent that I was told so by people whoso
judgment I trusted.
Senator Ixouye. Were you satisfied that the police department was
appropriately notified?
5lr. TAroiiER. Yes.
Senator Ixouye. So in your mind, you were certain that all possible
precautions were taken ?
Mr. Taugiier. Certainly.
Senator Ixouye. You have indicated that there is always a possi-
bility of violence in any "froup activity. I presume by tliat, even a
meetinfr of Boy Scouts could erupt into violence ?
Mr. TaittIIer. Or a soccer game or a number of other examples can
come to mind.
Senator Ixouye. I was not in Los Angeles at that time, but was this
demonstration violent, nonviolent, peaceful — how would you describe
this, sir?
Mr. Taugiier. I did not attend the demonstration myself. The re-
ports that I have of the demonstration are that it was a very peaceful
demonstration.
Senator Ix'ouye. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Ervix'^. Does counsel or anyone else have any further
questions ?
Mr. TrioMRSOx^. I would like to ask one or two more questions. Mr.
Chairman, since I am not clear on one point.
How many people did you estimate would attend the demonstration ?
Mr. Taugher. The estimates that had been given to me. as I recall,
by the organizers, our people who had been in contact with the or-
ganizers, was that it could go as high as 10.000. But, you know, I did
not know whether to expect 2,500 or 10,000.
Mr. TiioiMPSON. I do not want to get too much into the broader
political or philosophical areas. I think that is probably not my role,
but since it has been gone into, I think it is a proper question, since
no one has questioned your statement that this is a proper, desirable
campaign activity. I ain not referring to the right of any individual
to parade or peacefully protest or even carry a vulgar and lewd sign
or imply that the President is a Nazi or to imply that he is a mur-
derer. That is constitutionally protected, as I understand it. But as
a political activity of one partisan group against another, do you con-
sider it proper and desirable for one political campaign to promote
this sort of thing or assist in this sort of thing against its campaign
opponent ?
Mr. Taugiier. I think it is very proper for a campaign to peace-
fiillv demonstrate against an opponent when it is relative to an issue.
I think heckling, disruptive activities, ]:)ersonal attacks, things of that
sort are not at all proper and I do not think that they have any proper
place in American politics.
4554
Mr. Thompson. You think heckling does not have a proper plac(
in American politics ?
Mr. Taugher. I do not think it is a proper activity.
Mr. Thompson. Why ?
Mr. Taugher. Because I think it interferes with a person's right tc
free speech.
Mr. Thompson. What about 10,000 people? Sometimes that inter-
feres witli a person's right to enter a building or to even get out of an
automobile, and we will have, of course, other witnesses on some oi
these other things. But 10,000 people, a group of that size in and ol
itself carries that potential also, does it not ?
Mr. Taugher. This particular demonstration was set up so thai
there would be, as I understand it, no interference
Mr. Thompson. I am talking in a broader sense now.
Mr. Taugher. In a broader sense, I think I am essentially opposed
to interfering with anyone's freedom to move about or to speak.
Mr. Thompson. Would you have considered it a proper and desira-
ble political campaign activity for the Republicans or the Commit-
tee To Re-Elect or the local Republican organization in some way
to have assisted demonstrators against Senator McGovern when he
came to town; to have promoted a demonstration involving lewd
signs and holding up signs that implied Senator McGovern was a
Communist because he wanted to go and beg Hanoi on his knees?
Mr. Taugher. I think if the Committee To Re-Elect had organized:
a sizable demonstration in which, unfortunately, a handful of people
carried signs of that sort, I'd think the Committee To Re-Elect had;
conducted a proper activity and that they could not be held respon-
sible for a few delinquents. I think if the Committee To Re-Elect, oni
tlie other hand, had purposely put together a demonstration which, the
purpose of which would be to insult the candidate or to carry lewd
signs or to do anything of that nature, I think it would be very
improper.
Mr. Thompson. Did you consider for a moment that that would not
be the result in this particular demonstration ? Did you consider for a
moment that there would not be lewd and obscene signs, signs imply-
ing that tlie President was a Nazi ?
Mr. Taugher. I think we all have to be very practical, and I pre-
sume that if we had 10,000 demonstrators, we would have a handful
of unfortunate signs. But I also presumed that the majority of thei
demonstiators would be peaceful and polite and
Mr. Thompson. You presumed that as a matter of course, that
10,000 demonstrators, at a place where a previous demonstration had .,
turned into a scene of violence ? |
Mr. Taugher. That is right. >
Mr. Thompson. With the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and
otlier groups ?
Mr. Taugher. I made that presumption.
Mr. Thompson. You would presume that that would be a non-
violent demonstration ?
Mr. Taugher. Yes ; and as it turns out, my presumption was correct.
Mr. Thompson. It was in this case.
We have heard testimony concerning ordering pizza and limousines
for an individual's campaign when actually they did not order them
4555
and causing that campaign to have to pay for it in other areas, presum-
ably in the dirty trick area. But I presume what you are saying before
this committee, and you have not been challenged on it, is that to
assist in organizing a massive demonstration of 10,000 at a place that
had previously produced a violent demonstration with the assump-
tion that there would be some lewd and vulgar signs, that is proper,
not only proper but desirable campaign activity for the United
States of America ?
Mr. Taugher. To assist a peaceful demonstration, yes. To order
l)izzas and limousines, no.
Mr. Thompson. I have no further questions.
Senator Weicker. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might pose a question
here that has occurred to me as I have been listening to the colloquy.
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Senator Weicker. This occurred, as I understand it, in September
1972, is that correct?
Mr. Taikjher. Right.
Senator Weicker. Were the McGovern people not actually — I do
not mean to say afraid, but were you not concerned, if anything, over
the fact tliat demonstrating groups and any violence that emanated
from those groups might be attributed to the candidate ?
Mr. Taugher. Well, I suppose I would liave had, you know, a basic
fear that any demonstration against the President, whether our cam-
paign participated or not, would somehow reflect on the McGovern
candidacy. It was a situation where there were two adversaries, and
I think tlie public would likely make some assumptions.
Senator Weicker. Because the tendency up to that point had been
to paint — and we have had evidence to this extent before the commit-
tee— your candidate as a radical, as one who would go along with such
activity. Was this a concern to you, in other words ?
I see, from the testimony that you give, a sort of conflict, I sup-
pose, as between philosophy and practical politics, the conflict being
one of, certainly, agreeing with the precepts of our Constitution and
seeing that everybody does have the right to express themselves; on
the other hand, having been struck with the label, if you will, of radi-
cal, having it turned around on vou. Would vou like to comment on
that?
. Mr. Taugher. Well, I am not quite sure, Senator, what you are get-
ting at.
Senator Weicker. Well, what I am getting at is that — or what I am
asking you is — was it a practical political concern o*^ the McGovern
people that demonstrations that involved these types of groups would
get out of hand, and I suppose further define an image in the Ameri-
can voter's mind which was being attributed to your candidate?
Mr. Taugher. Well, speaking, then, for a moment as a practical
i; politician, the merits of the issue aside, I suppose that I would fear
that in such a situation, a demonstration would reflect on us whether
)or not we participated in it. If it were violent, even though we had
mothing to do with it, it would reflect on us. On the other hand, if it
Mvere a poorly attended demonstration and we had nothing to do with
tit, it would' somehow reflect on us that people did not really care
about that issue.
Senator Weicker. I think you have answered by question.
4556
Senator Ervin. Are there any further questions ? j
[No response.]
Senator Ervix. If not, tliank you very much. You are excused, Mr.
Taughor.
Mr. Dash. ]Mr. Chairman, before you call the next witness, who will
be very brief, could I first, with regard to Mr. McMinoway, the earlier
witness, have identified and intioduced in the record the various doc-
uments wliich he has identified? They are tab 1 through tab 9 which
wcM-e liis documents and from which I. Mr. Thompson, and the various
members of the committee questioned him.
Senator Ervix. Without objection, it is so ordered. They will be
received as exhibits and appropriately numbered as such.
[The documents referred to were marked exhibits Nos. 230 through
238.*]
Mr. Dash. Mr. Gary Hickman.
Senator Ervtx". Will you raise your right hand please ? Do you swear
tliat the evidence which you shall give to the Senate Select Committee
on Presidential Campaign Activities shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Lieutenant Hickman. I do.
ISIr. Hamiltox'. IMr. Hickman, would state your full name, please?
TESTIMONY OF GARY HICKMAN, LIEUTENANT, LOS ANGELES,
CALIF., POLICE DEPARTMENT
Lieutenant Hickmax^. Gary Hickman.
Mr. Hamiltox^. What is your business address?
Lieutenant Hickmax. 150 North Los Angeles Street, Ix)S Angeles,
Calif.
INIt". HA:sriT,Tox'. AAHiat is your current employment ?
Lieutenant Hickman. I am a lieutenant of police for the city of Los
Angeles.
Mr. Hamiltox'. And your current position with the Los Angeles-
Police Department is what ?
Lieutenant Hicktvian. I am the adiutant to the chief of police.
Mr. Hamilton. How long have you held this position ?
Lieuteiumt Hickmax. For the past 4 months.
Mr. Hamiltox'. Before that, what was your position ?
Lieutenant Hickmax\ I Avas assigned as community relations officer
to the West Los Angeles division.
Mr. Hamiltox. On the day of September 27, 1972, what was your
position at that time ?
Lieutenant Hickmax'^. I was acting as the commanding officer of the
West Ivos Angeles division durinq- the month of September.
Mr. Hamiltox-. Did you attend, in your official capacity, a demon-
stration in front of the'Centui-y Plaza Hotel on that date?
Lieutenant Hickmax. On September 27, yes.
Ml-. Hamiltox. And what was the occasion that prompted this dem-
onstration?
Lieutenant Htckman. It Avas a visit by President Nixon to the Cen-
tury Plaza Hotel for the purpose of attending a fundraising dinner.
►See pp. 4703-4718.
ll
4557
Mr. Hamilton. And what was your understanding of the people who
were organizing and sponsoring this demonstration, their identifica-
tions ?
Lieutenant Hickman. It was composed, as I was told, of a coalition
of several peace groups from various parts of the city of Los Angeles
and other parts of the country.
Mr. Hamlton. Were any of the organizers or sponsors persons who
were representing the McGovern campaign '?
Lieutenant Hickman. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Hamilton. Were you aware that the McGovern headquarters
phone banks were being used to drum up support for this demon-
stration ?
Lieutenant Hickman. I learned of that approximately 2 or 3 days
prior to the actual demonstration.
Mr. Hamilton. What was the source of that information ?
Lieutenant Hickman. Well, I originally received that information
through intelligence sources in my department and then subsequently
read about it in the Los Angeles Times.
Mr. Hamilton. Before the demonstration took place, did you meet
with the leaders of the demonstration ?
Lieutenant Hickman. Yes.
Mv. Hamilton. How many times did you meet with them ?
Lieutenant Hickman. Approximately eight times.
Mr. Hamilton. And with whom did you {)rincipally meet?
Lieutenant Hickman. With Dr. Donald Kalish, philosophy profes-
sor from UCLA.
Mr. Hamilton. What was the purpose of these meetings ?
Lieutenant Hickman. Tlie purpose of the meetings was primarily to
establish some workable guidelines between the demonstrators and the
police department as to the conduct of the demonstrators and to estab-
lish some rapport and some liaison between our two organizations.
Mr. Hamilton. I take it tluit the meeting was looking toward a
peaceful demonstration ?
Lieutenant Hickman. Yes.
Mr. Hamilton. Did you learn at these meetings that the leaders of
ithe demonstrations planned to have monitors to supervise the demon-
istrations and to preserve order?
Lieutenant Hickman. Yes.
Mr. Hamilton. What was your understanding as to how many moni-
tors were employed for this purpose ?
Lieutenant Hickman. I was told by Dr. Kalish that there would be
approximately 200 monitors.
Mr. Hamilton. After the demonstration took place, was an after-
action police report prepared on this event?
Lieutenant Hickman. Yes.
INIr, Hamilton. I am going to show you a copy of a documentor
documents you have provided me. I would like for you to identify
these, please.
Would you very quickly identify the documents?
Lieutenant Hickman. The docun'ient I was iust lianded is an after-
action report tliat was prepared by Comdr. George Beck, directed to
Deputy Chief Louis Spore. This report gi\os a brief synopsis of the
events" which took place prior to and during the demonstration on
4558
September 27. It gives a breakdown of man-hours expended and total
cost to tlie department as a result of that demonstration.
Mv. Hamilton. Now, how numy people participated in this demon-
stration?
Lieutenant Hickman. On the part of the demonstrators our official
estimate was 3,000.
Mr. Hamilton. I am going to ask you, Lieutenant Hickman to de-
scribe in your own words exactly what took place in this demonstra-
tion, and if you wish to refer to the report that I have given you, please
do so.
Will you tell the committee w^hat transpired and I think you should
make it brief because I understand there is going to be a vote in about
5 minutes.
Lieutenant Hickman. I will try.
The demonstration actually began on the UCLA campus at approxi-
mately 4 p.m. It began with a rally at the campus. The people who
rallied there then paraded from the Westwood Village area to the
Century Plaza Hotel. They arrived at the hotel at approximately 0
p.m., and from 6 p.m. until approximately 8 p.m., tnere was a continu-
ous buildup of the crowd size until it reached a peak at about
8 p.m.
The demonstration itself was entirely peaceful or with one or two
minor exceptions The crowd paraded in front of the hotel, across the
street from the hotel as the size of the crowd gi^ew larger. Many people
carried placards, there was a lot of chanting and shouting of slogans.
There were approximately 200 monitors who were identified by
green armbands that they wore. My particular job was to function as
the liaison between the demonstrators and my department, and as such
I was stationed directly in front of the hotel in uniform and I worked
with a group of about five peoj^le who were powered to be representa-
tives of the various peace groups, and they formed sort of a command
post cadre of demonstrators.
I dealt ]>rimarily, though, with Dr. Kalish even though the other:
people were there. :
Mr. Hamilton. Now, you said there were two minor incidents.
Would you describe those incidents, please?
Lieutenant Hickman. Yes, sir, the first incident occurred when I
personally observed two or three rocks being thrown at some of our
police photographers who were standing in the middle of the Century,
it WRS Avenue of the Stars in front of the hotel, and the rocks were
thrown from a group of people who were standing on the east side of
Avenue of the Stars.
I told Dr. Kalish that unless someone stopped that sort of activity
we would have to bring in miiformed officers to disperse the group.
He took about 20 of his monitors across the street, circulated through
the crowd and asked the people to behave themselves. He then took
these monitors and surrounded our police photographers in order to
prevent anyone else from throwing rocks at them.
Mr. Hamilton. Now, was there another incident that was provoked
when certain Nixon supporters came out of the hotel ?
Lieutenant Hickman. Yes.
Toward the end of the demonstration, there was a large group of
Young Republicans for Nixon who had staged a rally at the rear of
4559
the hotel earlier when President Nixon arrived at the hotel by heli-
copter. Tliey subsequently attended a banquet of some sort at the lower
level of the liotel. When that broke up, many of these young; people
came up to the lobby and flowed out onto the front entrance and drive-
way of the hotel, many of them were carrying; pro-Nixon signs, and
they began to shout at the demonstrators who, in turn, began to shout
back, and a large number of people who were standing or seated across
the street, ran across the street in large numbers apparently just to get
a better view.
The first response from the police officers stationed at the hotel
entrance was to biing out approximately two squads of uniformed
officers to form a skirmish line in front of the hotel doors. It was
merely a precautionary measure in the event that anyone should
attempt to proceed past the driveway and on up to the hotel.
The young Nixon demonstrators were encouraged to return to the
hotel — which they did — and we immediately withdrew our uniformed
officers from the front of the hotel and the crowd then went about its
business of marching and demonstrating.
Mr. Hamilton. Toward the end of the demonstration, was there -nn
incident involving a group from the Vietnam Veterans Against the
War?
Lieutenant Hickman. Yes. There were approximately 30 peoi)le
who were identified by Dr. Kalish as being members of the Vietnam
veterans. They arrived somewhat late in the demonstration. They we.re
perliaps more vocal than any other group that was thei-e. Dr. Kalish
■ had warned me several times during our prior meetings that he could
take no responsibility for this group. He felt that they were going
to definitely ti-y to provoke a violence confrontation, if possible. They,
at the very end of the demonstration when there were only about 200
or 300 people actually left marching, they took up positions along
! the guardrail of the hotel and they had broken sticks that they were
holding their placards on, and they began to rake the sticks across
; the steel guardrail, and continued to chant for a long period of time.
At about midnight, one squad of officers were brought out to simply
go along the guardrail and ask these individuals to leave, and to cease
'; their noisemaking, and they all complied with it. no pi'ol)lem. After
I that point, the entire demonstration dispersed and we disbanded our
;command post.
I Mr. Hamilton. Lieutenant, during the demonstration, how many
arrests were made ?
Lieutenant Hickman. There were a total of three arrests made.
Mr. Hamilton. What were these arrests for?
Lieutenant Hickman. Two of the arrests were made by the Los
Angeles Police Department, one for interfering with a police officer,
and another one. I believe, was for ]X)Ssession of drugs. The third
arrest, which was for possession of marihuana, was made by the Secret
Service in the hotel.
Mr. Hamilton, "\^^lat would be your overall characterization of the
demonstration? Would you characterize it as a peaceful demonstra-
; tion ?
1 Lieutenant Hickman. Yes, sir.
I INIr. Hamilton. ISIr. Patrick Buchanan, in his testimony before this
committee, described the Century Plaza incident as an example of,
4560
and I am quoting now, "Near- violent demonstrations denying the
President of the United States a right to speak."
Was this demonstration near violent ?
Lieutenant Hickman. No, sir.
]Mr. Hamilton. To your knowledge, did the demonstration deny the
President a right to speak?
Lieutenant Htck^tnn. No, sir. It was my understanding that the
program, as scheduled, went off without any problems.
Mr. Hamilton. Now, to change the subject, Lieutenant, are you
aware that, on September 17, 1972, a Nixon campaign office located,
on Fairfax Avenue in Hollywood suffered some fire damage? i
Lieutenant Hickman. Yes; I believe it was September 18, however. '
Mr. Hamilton. Did you personally investigate this incident ?
Lieutenant Hickman. No, sir.
Mr. Hamilton. Have you reviewed the police reports on this
incident ?
Lieutenant Hickman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hamilton. I am going to show you a copy of various police
reports which you have pix)vided to me, and I would like for you to jj
identify these reports.
Lieutenant Hickjlvn. I have before me several Los Angeles Police
Department reports, the first of which is a death report. The reference
number on all of these reports is 72-651638. This death report is for an
individual by the name of Jenkins, David William. There is a fol-
lowup report to that death report, a copy of the property receipt. The
next report is a Los Angeles Police Department burglary report, the
victim in this case being the Star City Distributors at 449 North Fair-
fax Avenue in Los Angeles.
There are three pages of narrative attached to this report. There is
then a followup report to this burglary, listing the name of the de-
ceased as well as two other suspects who were subsequently arrested
as a result of this incident.
There is a second followup report to this burglary listing several
other victims, one of which is the Democrats for Nixon headquarters
located at the same address.
There is a list of property that was taken in this burglary from the
various victims. Then there are a total of three Los Angeles Police
Department property reports listing various items of i)ioperty that
were subsequently recovered and booked into Ix>s Angeles Police De-
partment custody.
Mr. Hamilton. Lieutenant, I would like to ask you to read brief
portions of these reports into the record, and I would'like to focus your
attention first on the burglaiy report dated September 18, 1972, re-
garding the break-in at the Star City Distributoi-s. I would also like
to ask you to read the narrative that is found at page 3 of this report,
and I would appreciate it if you would translate the abbreviations for
us because I am not sure that they are all clear.
Lieutenant Hickman. Very well. Beginning on page 3 :
The reiwrtiiiR jxTson stated he locked and secured his building at 1330 hours
on September IG, 1972. At 0240 hours officer received a radio call "Arson suspects
just left from 4r>0 North Fairfax, susiKK-ts were 5 male negroes last seen running
from the location towards Oakwood Avenue." Officers arrived and observed the
Fire Department putting out a fire. Officers check the area for the suspeots but
they were gone on arrival.
4561
The officers investigation revealed that unknown suspects using a possible pry
tool pried the hasp off. Suspects entered and pried the hasp from a small door
directly to tlie rear of the building. They entered and ransacked that portion of
the building and removed unknown items. Suspects tlien went back into the main
part of tlie building, ransacked two desks and then removed the telephones by dis-
connecting them. Suspects then went to work in the front of the building. Suspects
then using an unknown tool punched a hole in the face of a timeclock. The time
when the clock was stopped is 0144 hours, September 18, 1972. Suspects then
went all the way to the front of the business, broke open a coke machine and
removed an unknown amount of U.S. coins. Suspects thi'U attempted to ar.son this
section with a magazine but only the magazine burned. Suspects then using a
possible tire iron from a vehicle pried a board away from the wall and entered
the other half of the building that was being rented by the Nixon for President
Committee. Suspects then went on the rear upstairs portion of the building and
set a fire. Suspects then left the building by the point of entry.
Mr. Hamilton. Lieutenant, I would now like to focus your attention
on the followup report on this burglary, dated November 18, 1972, and
ask you to read the iiai'rative that is contained on page 1.
Lieutenant Hickman. All right. "The above three subjects," and I
should dehne subjects here as the term we use to refer to juveniles as op-
posed to suspects that we use to define adults.
The above three subjects forced entry into the Star City Distributors, 449
North Fairfax and committed burglary and malmischief. During the commis-
sion of said burglary subject number one, Jenkins, started a fire in the busi-
ness office to cover up fingerprints being obtained. Subject one, Jenkins, appar-
ently got caught in the fire and perished before the Fire Department could put
the fire out. Investigating officer called to the scene had the deceased subject
identified at the LA County Morgue by latent prints and upon identification
started checking friends and associates for other suspects. During said in-
vestigation investigating officer identified two others involved, ari'ested them
and received a full confession. Investigating officer made a full recovery of prop-
erty taken from the Star City Distributors. Petitions were filed on subjects one
and two for murder, arson and burglary. The crime was cleared by arrest.
Mr. Hamilton. What does the report indicate that was taken from
the Nixon offices '^
Lieutenant Hickman. The only thing that was reported by the repre-
sentati^■e from the Nixon offices was $25 in miscellaneous U.S. currency.
Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Haldeman, before this committee, indicated
the Hollywood Nixon office was '"blown up by a bomb." Is there any
indication in the report that a bomb was exploded at the offices as Mr.
Haldeman testified 'i
Lieutenant PIickman. No, sir.
Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. I would
like to ask that the documents that Lieutenant Hickman has testified
from be entered into the record at this time.
Senator Erven. Without objection, that will be done. They will be
received as exhibits and appropriately numbered as such.
[The documents referred to were marked exhibits Nos. 239 and
^.240*].
Senator Ervin. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. How many man-hours, police man-hours, were
expended on assuring that the demonstration would be peaceful?
Lieutenant Hickman. According to our operation report, a total
of 4,212 man-hours.
Mr. Thompson. How many policemen would 4,212 man-hours
involve ?
*See pp. 4719-4727.
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11
4562
Lieutenant Hickman. The sum total of that, I believe, was 401 sworn
officei-s and 24 civilians for a total of 425 police department personnel.
Mr. Tho:mps()X. Could you make an evaluation beforehand as to the
possibilities or potential for violent confrontation ?
Lieutenant PIickman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompsox. What was your evaluation ?
Lieutenant Hickmax. My evaluation after having several meetings
with the demonstrators, was that there was a good likelihood we would
experience a peaceful demonstration. However, we were also prepared
in the event that things should escalate and not be peaceful.
Mr. Thompsox. There is a report here signed by G. N. Beck, com-
manding officer, which indicates that this event had the potential of
becoming a major confrontation. Would that be correct?
Lieutenant Hickmax. Yes, sir; the potential was certainly there.
INIr. Thompsox. Were you present at the 1967 demonstration?
Lieutenant Hickmax. Yes, sir.
IMr. Thompsox. Could you describe it ?
Lieutenant Hickmax. Yes, sir; I would have to say that was a
violent demonstration.
Mr. Thompsox. Could you be a little more specific? Was there de-
struction of property involved ?
Lieutenant Hickmax. There was, to my knowledge, no real destruc-
tion of property, not to an extent at any rate. There was — across the
street from the hotel where the majority of the people congregated,
some 10,000 — was at that time just a large vacant field, today that
area is a large entertainment center, so that when the officers in 1967
movxd forward to make arrests the i)eople were allowed to disperse
through large vacant fields and then on to the various streets so there
was no real danger of any large amount of property being damaged
and to my knowledge there was no large amount of property damage.
Mr. Thompsox'. In what way was it violent?
Lieutenant Hickmax. Well, it was violent from the stand]:)oint
there were numerous attacks on police officers on the part of demon-
strator^ there were rocks being hurled and other objects such as bot-
tles and sticks. There were, during the arrests processes that took
place later on, numerous physical confrontations between police of-
ficers and demonstrators.
Mr. Thompsox. Did any of the people wlio were in charge of this
demonstration m 1972 participate in the 1967 event also, so far as you
know ?
Lieutenant Hickmax. You are speaking about part of the demon-
stratoi-s themselves?
Mr. Thompsox. Yes.
Lieutenant Hickmax. Professor Kalish takes credit for being one
of the prime movers behind the 1967 demonstration and I do recall
his name being mentioned ))rominently during that period of time,
and he did indicate to me that there would be many peo])le present
at the 1972 demonstration who were there in 1967. and he also advised
me that it was certainly not theii- wishes to rejoeat 1967.
Mr. Thompsox. Did yon di?cuss with Dr. Kalish whether or not
there was any McGovern support or assistance in the 1972 demon-
stration ?
4563
Lieutenant Hickman. I never solicited him for that sort of infor-
mation. He did vohuiteer on many occasions during our conversations
that this demonstration was not per so pro-^NIcGovern. He indicated
that many of the pcoj^le there woukl naturally be in favor of Mc-
Govern over Xixon, but they did not want to do anything in this dem-
onstration that wovdd be counterproductive to ]McGovern's efforts,
and he voiced that concern many times. He pointed out that the issue,
stop the war and stop Nixon, would, in the minds of many people, be
associated with ]\Ir. McGovern.
Mr. Thompson. Did he express the idea that if that turned out to
be a violent demonstration it might hurt Mr. McGovern politically I
Lieutenant Hickman. Most definitely.
Mr. Thompson. Do you recall how many man-hours were involved
or how many officers were involved in trying to control the 1967
demonstration?
Lieutenant Hickman. No, sir; I have no access to that information
at this time.
Mr. Thompson. You were present — would you say there were more
or less police officers involved in the 1972 demonstration?
Lieutenant Hickman. I would say in 1967 there were probably more
police officers. Certainly a more active role.
IMr. Thompson. Why would that be?
Lieutenant Hickman. Well, because of the violent nature of the
demonstration. All of our intelligence information during 1967
Mr. Thompson. You are talking about the officers who came on the
scene. I assume you are including some of them after it became vio-
lent?
Lieutenant Hickman. We had a large number of officers present in
1967 at the outset because we had every reason to believe it was going
to be a violent confrontation.
All the intelligence information indicated that.
Mr. Thompson. All right. I have no further questions, thank you.
Senator Ervin. Was there anything to indicate that this violent
burglary in the Nixon headquarters, was anything other than just an
ordinary run of the mill burglaiy ?
Lieutenant Hickman. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. Was there anything indicating that anylx)dy con-
nected with the political campaign of anybody had anything to do
with it?
Lieutenant Hickman. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. That is all.
The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow.
I want to thank you, and I am sorry I have interrupted your vaca-
tion and I hope you will enjoy the rest of it.
Lieutenant Hickman. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 5 :10 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene
at 10 a.m., Thursday, October 11, 1973.]
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1973
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee ox
Presidential Campaign Activities,
W ashlngto'ii , D .C .
The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :05 a.m. in room
318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., chair-
man.
Present: Senators Ervin, Inouye, Montoya, Baker, Gurney, and
Weicker.
Also present : Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director; Fred D.
Thompson, minority counsel ; Rufus L. Edmisten, deput3' chief coun-
sel ; David M. Dorsen, James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assist-
ant chief counsels; Marc Lackritz, James C. Moore, Ronald D. Ro-
tunda, "\y. Dennis Summers, and Barry Schocliet, assistant majority
counsels; Eugene Boyce, hearings record counsel; Howard S. Lieben-
good, ^Michael J. ]Madigan, and Robert Silverstein, assistant minority
counsels; Jed Johnson, investigator; Pauline O. Dement, research as-
sistant; Eiler Ravnliolt, office of Senator Inouye; Robert Baca, office
of Senator Montoya; Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator Baker; A.
Searle Field, assistant to Senator AVeicker; and Michael Flanigan,
assistant publications clerk.
Senator Baker [presiding]. The committee will come to order. The
chairman was called away on official business and asked me to recon-
A'ene the hearing and proceed. He will be able to rejoin us later in the
morning, I understand.
Would counsel call the first witness ?
Mr. Dash. Mr. Richard Stearns.
Senator Baker. Stand and be sworn, please. Would you hold up
your right hand ? Do you swear the testimony you are about to give
before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Stearns. Yes, I do.
Senator Baker. You may be seated ; counsel will proceed.
Mr. Dash. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Terry Lenzner, assistant
chief counsel, will initiate the questioning of tliis witness.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Stearns, do you have counsel ?
Mr. Elliott. John M. Elliott of the Philadelphia bar.
Mr. Mannino. Edward F. Mannino.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Stearns, do you have a statement you would like
to read? Would you go ahead ancl proceed to read that, please?
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD Q. STEARNS, ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD
F. MANNINO AND JOHN M. ELLIOTT, COUNSELS
^Ir. Stearns. Thank voii vei'v much.
INIr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would have ap-
preciated the elementary courtesy of reasonable notice in advance of
(4565)
4566
this appearance because I would have preferred to prepare a com-
prehensive statement for the committee. The subject you have been
charged to examine is critical, and it deserves the best reflection and
insight any witness can offer.
Mr. Buchanan complained that this was difficult, despite having all
the resources of the White House at his disposal, because he was given
only 6 days to prepare. But as at least some of 3'ou are aware, I was
notified of this request to appear less than 24 hours ago, in the course
of an oral presentation to one of the classes at Harvard Law School
where I am a student.
In recent weeks, the press has reported that some of the committee
staff has been engaged in a fishing expedition for a partisan purpose —
to absolve the outrages of the most corrupt Presidential campaign in
American history by finding something — anything — no matter how
insubstantial, in order to place blame on a Democratic campaign which
sought honestly and decently to provide a different kind of national
leadership.
Yesterday a hired liar for CREP, a self-serving Republican
expert on so-called Democratic dirty tricks, went so far as to defame
the memory of Senator Robert Kennedy by implying that Senator
Kennedy was the inspiration for his contemptible conduct.
It is perhaps revealing that no one on this committee had to strain
at figuring out who among the Nixon campaign to subpena, or what
questions to ask them. The scandal there was pervasive. The abuses
screamed for attention and correction. Xothing could any longer con-
ceal the crimes and the co\'erups. The problem was not whether there
was an excuse to start an investigation, but whether there was any
way to end it.
Xow, some of those who have been forced at last to face the beam in
one party's eye are searching to find a mote in the other party's eye.
This is not the appropriate exercise of a power that was supposed
to reach beyond partisanship in order to renew the principles we all
profess. ]More than that, it is a profound disservice.
First, it is a disservice to the facts. The ]\IcGovern campaign was
founded not on dirty tricks, but on the truth. In 1972 we made mis-
takes, but we did not commit crimes. Let me list some of the things we
did not do. We did not taj^ any telephones. We did not burgle any of-
fices. We did not hire any demonsti-ators. We did not employ any spies.
We did not refuse — indeed, we welcomed the opportunity — to disclose
the sources of our financing. We never solicited, we never took — and we
never expected — ^an illegal corporate contribution. We never com-
mitted perjury, or asked anyone to commit perjury for us. We never
manipulated or debased the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, or the
Justice Department. We nevei- considered a firebombing or the enlist-
ment of prostitutes to compromise the ojijwsition or anvone else, or
even kidnaping those who saw the world differenth' than we did.
We were beaten, but we were not dishonored. And the attempt to find
fault where there is none, to lay blame where it does not belong, to
whitewash the guilty by blackening the innocent, is a pathetic piece
of political gamesmanship.
And let me tell you some of the things we did do. We were honest
about who was paying for our campaign and about the principles and
programs for which we stood. We were open and frank with the press
4567
and tlie American people. We invited the scrutiny of everyone, at times
to our- disadvantage — and I welcome snch scrutiny now ; but not the in-
nuendoes and slanders which are the last refuge of those who cannot
acquit themselves except by accusing others. I believe that when this
committee's work is done, when the last witness has been heard and the
final recommendations are written, you will call for the kind of honest
and decent politics George jNIcGovern practiced in 1972.
Second, unfounded attacks on Democratic integrity are a disservice
to the Republican Party. It is not necessary for Republicans to pix)ve
that Democrats are just as bad. For the truth is that most people in
both parties have held to high standards of conduct. Republicans and
Democrats alike have waged fair fights in most campaigns at every
level. Indeed, most of those who thought last year the President's re-
election was right did nothing in that cause which any of us would
regard as wrong. They voted to reelect the President, not to bug the
Democratic National Committee.
Finally, it is a disservice to the Nation to imply that all politics is
as bad as a few men made it in 1072. I have not been long in politics —
only 5 years; but I have met many people and politicians from the
grassroots to the Senate, in both parties, whom I proudly call my
friends and who, I believe, give constant witness to the ideals of the
American system. This committee at its best exemplifies politics at its
best. And the worst disservice now would be to convince the Nation
that this cannot be — that the political process is inevitably degraded
and unworthy. For that does not save Republicans or the administra-
tion. It not only slanders Democrats, it unjustifiably strains the faith
of the American people in the American system.
Mr. Chairman, in these last months, you have heard — and all of us
have seen — a record of sabotage and slander unprecedented in Ameri-
can history. I experienced personally some of that slander last year.
The facts are different from the fiction which was widely promoted.
In 1967, I signed a newspaper appeal which endorsed the Middle
East policy that was subsequently supported by the ITnited States
and adojited by the United Nations. At that time, I favored wdiat
the Nixon administration once hailed as an evenhanded policy in the
Middle East. I consistently advocated that policy, in a responsible
way, until the outbreak of Arab terrorism and the escalation of Soviet
i intervention convinced me that I was wrong. My earlier position was
no secreit. It was publicly expressed at the time, as was my current
position during the 1972 campaign.
Despite that, the most outlandish and outrageous smeare were
spaM'ued and perpetuated by the Committee To Re-Elect the Presi-
dent. For example, the committee's publicist, Mr. Devan L. Shumway,
spread a rumor among the press tliat I had been a guerrilla leader
in Al Fatah. It hardly merited the denial it deserved, but it was dan-
gerous and vicious slander. Finally, I called my friend Patrick Bu-
chanan, and Mr. Shumway, at least, was apparently restrained.
Yet, what I resented most was not the unfounded attack on me, but
the implication that views I never held, in years already ])ast,
were the views of George McGovem in 1972. Certainly Senator Mc-
Govern's ])Osition was well and widely stated. Yet CREP wanted to
take the views they had created for me and make them his. By the
same logic, we could conclude that Mr. Colson's alleged plan for fire-
4568 I
bombing the Brookings Institution proved that President Nixon was 1
the new mad bomber. I tliink we have exi)erienced too much of such «,
logic. AVe have heard too many unscrupulous smears. We have seen \
too often men who should have served their country but shamed it [
instead. I
We need no more forged cables, no more inoperative coverups, no !
more smears against good and decent citizens — among them an as- |
sassinated President^ — who seek only to do what they believe is right j
for their country — whethei- they are Democrats like Senator Hum- |
phrey, who was* accused of sexual misconduct, or Republicans like i
Senator Weicker, who was accused of cam):)aign financing abuses. \
In my view, we need instead to remember the words of Edmund j
Burke : I
I am aware that our age is not everything we wish it to be, but I am convinced
that the only means of checl^ing its degeneracy is to concur heartily in whatever
is best in our times.
For me, in 1972, George McGovern represented what was best for j
our times. Not all of you agreed, and obviously millions of voters
disagreed. But at least I am confident of this much — ^that the Mc-
Govern campaign kept faith with what is best in the American politi-
cal tradition.
Mr. Lexzxer. Thank you, IVIr. Stearns.
Mr. Stearns, you indicated in this statement some surprise about
being called, and I would like to set the record straight on that, if I
can.
Our records reflect that you were fii"st interviewed at the request
of the majority staff, Mr. INIoore and Mr. Rowe; and also Mr. Shure
of the minoritv staff was present, on September 18 of this year, is that
correct ?
Mr. Stearns. That is true.
Mr. Lexzner. And you were served at that time with a subpena, a
copy of which I have here, to produce certain documents, is that also
correct ?
Mr. Stearxs. No ; I was not served with a subpena at that time.
Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lenzner, if I may, so the record is clear on this,
Mr. Stearns appeared in executive session on October 3 at which time
he Avas tendered a subnena when he was sworn in. He had conversations!
with two members of yoni- legal staff prior to that time with no sub-
pena tendered until he was here last week for the October 3 hearing
in executive s^ession. At that time he was examined and asked to pro-
duce his analysis of Senator Muskie's campaign — Senator Muskie's
voting record, which was supplied to the committee.
Mr. Lexzxer. I understand that. But I have here a subpena and I
don't want to belabor this. The return is dated September IS: Mr.
Moore signed it and indicated that he served it on the 18th of
September.
Mr. Elliott. That was never served.
]\rr. Stearxs. T was served two separate subpenas; the first occasion
was when I concluded the executive hearing and I accepted it. I was
then served a second subpena at my interview in the executive commit-
tee on October 3.
Mr. Lexzxer. So you were served a subpena prior to October 3 ?
Mr. Stearxs. Yes.
4569
Mr. Lexzner. And on October 3 you were sworn in by Senator
Inonye and you answered questions on that occasion also ?
Mr. Stearns. Yes, I did.
Mr. Lexzner. And between the September 18 and the October 3
interviews you also, as I understand it, called one of your former stafi
aides to discuss the incidents you were being interA'iewed on.
Mr. Stearns. Yes; I was infoi'med by the coinisel who asked me to
appear at the original session that this was an area of interest to the
committee.
Mr. Lenzner. But you were on some notice then going back to
September 1?
Mr. Stearns. I am not objecting
Mr. Lenzner. To the possibility you would appear here — right?
Mr. Stearns. Yes: I am not objecting to appearing before the com-
mittee. I am objecting to appearing on what was originally 2 hours'
notice which my counsel extended to 16 hours. I was not sure the
committee was ever going to have me appear or not. I have not seen my
name on the list o ^ witnesses in the last 2 or 3 days.
Mr. Lenzner. All right.
Now, Mr. Stearns, as 1 understand it you were with Senator Mc-
Govern's campaign prior to the convention and after the convention.
What was your specific assignment and position after the convention?
Mr. Stearns. Prior to the convention 1 was initially director of
research and then director of the Senator's campaign in the States
which did not hold Presidential primaries. After the convention, there
was a general reorganization of the campaign and I was assigned as
director of what was called the western region which included the 19
States west of the Mississippi Eiver. This is a position which I
functionally occupied until approximately the end of Se):)tember, at
which time my attention shifted primarily to the campaign in
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Lenzner. And was California one of the States that you were
responsible for after the convention for that period of time?
Mr. Stearns. California is among the States west of the Mississippi
River ; yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, in September of 1972, you did make a trip to
''. California. Prior to that trip, were you aware that there was a prob-
lem in the California campaign with regard to some peace groups?
iNIr. Stearns. Xo; I was not aware there was a problem in the cam-
paign with regard to peace groups. I was aware there was a problem
in the internal administration of the campaign. My reason for being
in California on that day was an attempt to negotiate — in fact, an at-
; tempt to recruit a new campaign director for the southern California
I operation.
Mr. Lenzner. Who was the campaign director at that time?
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Fred Taugher.
Mr. Lenzner. Prior to tlie time you went to California, however, did
you not receive a petition from people involved in Senator McGovern's
; campaign raising certain issues about the campaign ?
Mr. Stearns. Yes ; but to the best of my recollection, that petition
mentioned nothing about a peace group.
Mr. Lenzner. Did it phrase implications in your mind that there was
I [concern over Avhether Senator McGovern and the campaign were ad-
I I hering to a strong policy on Vietnam and in the peace area?
4570
ISIr. Stearxs. Xo; it did not. The petition related to internal — in
fact, most of it, as I recall, dealt with difficulties in the literature-
distribution system ; mostly complaints about the administrative man-
ner in which the campaign was bein<r conducted.
Mr. Lexzxer. Yesterday, you were interviewed, and you indicated
at that time that it raised questions about the grassroots quality of the
campaign. You indicated also, I believe, that that indicated to you that
there was some concern about the strength of commitment for peace in
the campaign.
Mr. Searxs. Xo; I believe that you construed that as one of the
things that grassroots might mean. One can speculate as to what grass-
roots might suggest on any number of issues. That could be one of
them. But I am sure that was not speculation that I made at the time.
Mr. Lexzxer. Our recollection differs on that.
"When you arrived in California, were you briefed by anybody in the
campaign concerning problems with the peace groups and the
campaign?
i\Ir. Stearxs. Xo ; not on my arrival. Again, let me make perfectly
clear that my reason for being in California dealt with an internal ad-
ministrative problem within the campaign organization. There was no
other purpose for my trip there. ]My only objective was to interview a
gentleman whom I was attempting to recruit, and did recruit even-
tually, as a new southern California campaign director. The only sug-
gestion— well, that really answers the question, I think.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did there come a time when you were out there that
you did enter into discussions with people about a possible demonstra-
tion with these groups ?
Mr. Stearxs. Yes, there was. As I recall, this was a very quick trip
to California. By that time, I Avas somewhat occupied with other mat-
ters and hoped to settle the internal difficulties in the campaign as
quickly as I could.
As one of the courtesies that I did, as I did in most States that I
A'isited, I dropped by the Los Angeles — I am sorry, the southern
California headquarters, which were on Wilshire Boulevard in Los
Angeles. At that time my liaison with the California campaign asked
if, for morale purposes, I would tour through the offices and shake
hands with the campaign workers who were there.
Mr. Lex'zxer. Did you have a discussion at that time about a possible
demonstration coming up ?
Mr. Stearxs. In the course of that tour of the headquarters, I met
a lady who was apparently involved in or had attended the organizing
meetincf of the demonstration that vou are referring to.
Mr. Lexzx'er. And who was that ?
Mr. S'reARxs. "Well. I do not recall her name.
Mr. Lexzx'er. Who introduced you to her?
Mr. Stearxs. Mrs. Jo Seidita, the California national committee-
woman.
Mr. Lexzxer. '\^nio was present at that conversation ?
Mr. Stearxs. To the best of my recollection — is this the conversa-
tion with Jo Seidita or the conversation regarding the demonstration?
Mr. Lexzxer. Is tliere a difference ?
Mv. Stearxs. Thej-e was. I mot Jo Seidita first, and then I met the
woman whose name I don't recall.
4571
Mr. Lexzner. Wl^at discussion did you have vcith. Seidita ?
Mr. Stearns. When I met hei-, we conversed for a minute about the
campaipi. She asked if I would then meet this woman.
Mr. Lenzner. Did she indicate to you why she wanted you to meet
this other individual ?
Mr. Stearxs. I don't recall that she did ; no.
Mr. Lexzxer. Yesterday, I believe, you indicated that you thought
you got a quick briefing from her as to why she wanted you to meet
this other individual, and that was because of the other person's con-
cern over the commitment of the campaign for the peace movement.
Mr. Stearxs. No; I think your recollection of our conversation
yesterday is faulty. I said that Barbara MacKenzie, who was conduct-
ing my tour through the headquarters, had told me that she thought
Mrs. Seidita had someone she wanted me to meet, who was involved in
some liaison capacity with the peace movement.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did MacKenzie indicate that there was some concern
over the peace movement ?
Mr. Stearns. I don't think so ; no.
Mr. Lenzner. What conversation did you have finally with Seidita
and the other individual concerning the possible demonstration?
Mr. Stearns. Now, are you asking for my best recollection of what
occurred at this ?
Mr. Lenzner. That is correct.
Mr. Stearns. My best recollection is that I was introduced to this
other woman. She then explained to me that a coalition of peace
groups in Los Angeles was organizing a demonstration, a peacefvd as-
sembly, to coincide with the President's address, I believe on the 27th
of September, at the Century Plaza Hotel. To the best of my recollec-
tion, this is the first occasion on which I was even aware that the
President planned a trip to the Century Plaza Kotel in Los Angeles
at that time. I asked her the normal sort of courteous questions that
you ask when you fill in the role of a visiting dignitary ^ — asked her
about the character of the demonstration. I am sure I asked her how
many people they expected. I might have even asked her where the
Century Plaza Hotel was, since I had no idea — and still don't —
where it was.
She then asked me if I had any objection to members of the Mc-
Govern campaign staff attending the demonstration. I said "No," that
no one sacrificed any first amendment right when they went to work
for a Presidential candidate; that if they chose as a matter of con-
science to participate, to attend, I had no objection to that. That is my
recollection of the conversation.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember who else was present ?
Mr. Stearns. To the best of my recollection, Mrs. Seidita was
present; this lady I was in discussion with was present; my liaison
' for southern California, Barbara MacKenzie, was present, and I was
present, of course.
Mr. Lenzner. You don't recall Fred Taugher being there ?
Mr. Stearns. I do not recall Fred Taugher being present there.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did this other individual, in your presence, request
the campaign to provide any assistance for the demonstration ?
Mr. Stearns. To the best of my recollection, no.
4572
Mr. Lenzner. Did this other individual indicate that she and others
were concerned about the commitment of the campaign to the peace
movement ?
Mr. Stearns. I don't recall that being specifically said ; no.
Mr. Lenzner. Or that the McGovern campaign was giving up the
peace issue?
Mr. Stearns. I don't think she made a statement to that effect ; no.
Mr. Lenzner. Let me read and see if this refreshes your recollection
from your executive session of October 3, 1973. Mr. Liebengood asked
you, concerning this conversation : "What did they ask you ?"
And you answered, "Well, as I understand the circumstances, this
lady was" — this is at page 49 if you have a copy.
Mr. Manning. Counsel, we don't. We requested one.
Mr. P^LLioTT. We requested a copy and were told we would be sup-
plied one
Mr. Lenzner. Page 49. [Reading :]
Mr. Stearns. Well, as I understood the circumstances, that this lady was very
interested in what you might call the peace movement in Los Angeles and she
was concerned that the McGovern campaign was giving up the issue of peace
in the fall election. I realize this is hard to imagine, but nonetheless, this was
her concern.
Now, was that expressed during that meeting ?
Mr. Stearns. I said I don't specifically recall it being. It may well
have been. I don't recall it being expressed. There are any number
of opportunities I would have had to come across this. This might be
my speculation as to why she was interested in making a presention on
the demonstration. Barbara MacKenzie may have suggested it to me;
Jo Seidita may have suggested it to me. I don't see that it is a particu-
larly surprising conclusion.
Mr. Lenzner. But that was your understanding when you testified
under oath on October 3.
Mr. Manning. I think it should be clear on page 49 of this trans-
script that what Mr. Stearns is talking about is not in the context of
what Mrs. Seidita said to him but rather what his understanding was.
You quoted part of it. Let's quote the whole thing, starting at line
13:
Well, as I understand the circum.stances. that this lady was very interested in
wliat you might call the peace movement in Los Angeles and she was concerned
that the McGovern campaign was giving up the issue of peace.
This is in the context of what he was told. I think your question was
what was Mrs. Seidita telling him.
Mr. Lenzner. I read that i)art of it, but the prior pages indicate
that Mr. Liebengood was asking about the meeting — that prior ques-
tions indicated he was asking questions about who this other individual
was that Mr. Stearns had met with.
The prior question is : "And what did they ask you ?"
This is his response to that question: "What did she ask jou?''
Mr. Elliott. And he answered, "As I understood the circumstances,"
if you will read on nage 13, as Mi-. Mannino pointed out.
Mr. Lenzner. Exactly. And that is his answer to that question.
By the wav. what was the policy of the canq)aign at that time as tOj
using campaign re^■ourcos for demonsti'ations?
Mr. Stearns. I think the policy of the campaign toward demonstra-
tions
4573
Mr. Lexzxer. Using resources to aid demonstrations ?
Mr. Stearns. I think as a general policy, we discouraged it. I think
everyone knew the Senator's view of demonstrations. As I recall, as
early in the campaign as 1970, he made clear that he did not see that
violent demonstrations served the principles or issues in which he
strongly believed. I think that was the policy that was generally under-
stood by everyone in the campaign.
I should point out, however, that we are talking now about a consti-
tutionally protected right that people have. But I would say that,
siJecitically, it was not a policy to lend resources to demonstrations — ■
certainly never a policy to organize a demonstration.
Mr. Lenzner. I think you also indicated yesterday that there was
some concern over the political impact that might result if the cam-
paign was linked to a demonstration, violent or nonviolent.
Mr. Stearns. I think that would occur to anyone in the tactical sit-
uation. Yes, the Committee To Re-P^lect the President was doing
every'thing it could to paint George McGovern as an irresi~)onsible,
violence-prone, drug-addicted fiend. Xaturally, we didn't want to do
anything to reinforce any impression, any false impression, that was in
the public's mind about the Senator; and clearly, being linked to a
violent demonstration couldn't possibly serve the best interests of our
campaign.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you inquire from any of the individuals during
that discussion as to what groups were going to participate in the
demonstration ?
Mr. Stearns. Xo ; I didn't.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you issue any instructions to insure that the cam-
paign would not provide resources to assist in that demonstration?
Mr. Stearns. To the best of my recollection, I didn't.
Mr. Lenzner. You have discussed, as I think you have indicated to
us — between your first interview on September 18 and your- executive
session on October 3, you did discuss this meeting with Mrs. Mac-
Kenzie ; is that correct 'I
Mr. Stearns. That is true.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you recall now her recollection as she told it to
you of what happened at that meeting ?
Mr. Stearns. Yes; I think my description of what her recollection
. was is clear in the record from both the executive session and the inter-
view. The first time I discussed it with her, her best recollection — I
think if you are interested in her best recollection she is the one to
ask for it.
Mr. Lenzner. "We have talked to her.
Mr. Stearns. Right. Her best recollection at first was that, no, the
issue of campaign resources did not come up at the meeting. I asked
her again to recount her recollection before I came to the interview. I
called her to tell her that the issue was that I had been instructed to
inform her by counsel that I had used her name. She said then that she
had thought about it further and thought that perhaps a question
about the telephone bank may have been brought up during that
meeting, but if it was, she is sure that I said "No.''
Now, that is my recollection of her recollection.
Mr. Lenzner. "I understand that, but did she also tell you that she
had advised you, prior to the discussions with this individual you met
4574
in September, tluit they were going to ask you about the demonstration
and the use of resources and she advised you to sidestep that issue ?
Did .«he not also say that to you ?
Mr. Stearns. She may have^ — the recollections are now so far re-
moved.
]\Ir. Lenzxer. That is what you said under oath on October -3.
Mr. Stearxs. Well, that must have been my recollection then ; yes.
Mr. Elliott. Counsel, I realize that you are not constrained by the
hearsay rule here, but I would ask you respectfully to break your ques-
tions down into answerable questions. You are asking multiple ques-
tions that are difficult to answer.
Mr. Lexzxer. Well, did she advise you prior to the time you met
with this group out there that you were going to be asked about the use
of resources for this demonstration ?
Mr. Stearns. If I said that is what I recalled from the conversation
I had had wnth her prior to the executive committee meeting, and that
is what I said on October 8, that must have been my best recollection at
the time; yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you I'ecall now that that is what happened prior to
the time you met with this other individual ?
Mr. Stearns. No; I do not think I would have recalled that or I
would not have asked her in the fii'st place for her recollection.
Mr. Lenzner. Would it not seem natural, Mr. Stearns, if they were
discussing a demonstration with you, if they also were seeking to use
the resources of the campaign, they would Iiave sought that aid from
you ?
Mr. St]:arns. No; because I think you have to go back to a funda-
mental understanding about the McGovern campaign. Our campaign
was one which was premised on the autonomy of each local State or-
ganization. Now, in California, for all effective purposes, there were
two State organizations: one Avhich ran the campaign in the South,
another which ran the campaign in the North. I did not have admin-
istrative authority within the campaign; I certainly had authority
over general issues, general policy, at least up to the time I was in-
volved with the Western States — that is, up to the end of September.
I certainly had a dignitary's capacity everywhere I went. I was ini-
tially responsible for organizing and recruiting the cami^aign staff to
whom authority was given to manage the campaign. But I do not think
at any time in any visit that I ever made to any one of our campaign
headquarters in any of those 19 States I would have ever presumed to
take the authority or presume that I had the authority to make admin-
istrative decisions about tho dis})0sal of equipment or material within a
headquarters.
Our camj^aign just did not operate that way. We dealt largely with
fiercely independent volunteer workers or paid workers whose in-
terest— ours Avas just not as well disciplined an organization as the
CREP's was.
Ml'. Lenzner. Are you suggesting now, though, that if you were
present during the discussion where it was indicated that action was
going to be taken by a local campaign headquarters, it was clearly
against the policy of Seiuitor McGovorn, clearly against the policy
of the headquarters office, was going to cause tremendous possible
political damage to the campaign, that you would not have taken any
steps to stop that action ?
4575
Mr. Stearxs. This is a highly — wlmt incident are you talking about?
This is a highly speculative question. I do not recall anyone proposing
to nie that we were going to take any steps that were going to cause
violent damage to the campaign, that were going to violently break
any policy. You are suggesting something to me that just did not
happen in the campaign.
Mr. Lexzner. Mr. Taugher testified yesterday that you were present
at a discussion when the use of campaign resources was discussed, and
specifically, the phone banks were going to be used to assist in this
demonstration. If that had happened, if there had been violence in that
demonstration, that could have caused, I take it, some damage to the
campaign, that it would have been tied, as it was tied, to the McGovern
, campaign headquarters.
Mr. Stearns. Let me say this. I have lost count of the number of
"ifs" in your question. I do not recall any of these violent
Mr. Lexzxer. You asked me to give you an example. I just gave
you an example based on Mr. Taugher's testimony yesterday.
Mr. Stearxs. JNIr. Taugher has given you his best recollection ; I have
given you my best recollection.
]Mr. Lexzxer. I am saying, in that specific instance, if Mr. Taugher's
recollection is correct. Are you saying now if you had been there, you
i would not have taken any steps to stop the use of those resources?
Mr. Stearxs. I was never in any situation where, to the best of my
recollection, that was posed.
INIr. Lexzxer. And you do not want to answer it now ?
Mr. Stearxs. You are talking about a completely hypothetical cir-
cumstance that I was not confronted with. I do not think my role here
as a witness is to be led into hypotheses of what could have hapjDened.
The pui'pose of the committee is to
]\Ir. Lenzxer. And Mrs. MacKenzie's testimony is that you were
present at that discussion, and ]\Ir. Taugher testified that you were
there.
]\Ir. Stearx's. I am not testifying to Mr. Taugher's recollection. I am
lonly recollecting Mrs. ]MacKenzie's recollection. I am only testifying
to what I recollect — what I know.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you later learn that such a demonstration had
taken place and that the campaign resources were used to assist it?
Mr. Stearx's. Some time in October, I was mailed a copy of an
article in the Los Angeles Times which described the demonstration
that did take place, and a co])y of a Los Angeles Times editorial en-
titled, "A Demonstration of Maturity," which concluded : "The demon-
strators demonstrated that a protest can be peaceful; the police dem-
onstrated that it is possible to maintain order without force. AVelcome
civility." This is not something that alarmed me terribly.
Mr. Lexzxer. But the reports also indicate that the campaign re-
sources had been used to aid that demonstration and, in fact, that was
an issue in California at that time, was it not ?
Mr. Stearx-^s. As I recall, what I saw was a very short article which
i I think was in the Los Angeles Times, sometime in October, which said
, that the telephone banks in the McGovern headquarters had been used,
j not by McGovern personnel, I think, but by people outside of the
j campaign for a brief period of time, and then they had been told to
stop.
4576
Mr. Lexzxer. After you read that, did you discuss that incident
with anybody at all in the McGovern campaign, either in Washington
or in California?
Mr. Stearxs. No, I did not.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you take any steps to insure it would not happen
again either in California or anywhere else in the country ?
Mr. Stearxs. No; it appears steps had been taken and the issue
you were talking about was a perfectly peaceful assembly which I
understood was a constitutionally protected right of citizens.
Mr. Lexzxer. I understand that, but the use of resources of the
demonstration was clearly against the policy of the campaign ; so this
was a violation of the ])olicv of your headquarters, was it not?
Mr. Stearxs. So what ? The article that I saw suggested that it had
been i)ut to a stop. It did not appear there had been any great harm
done. I do not recall it as being any major burning issue. It only be-
came a burning issue, as I recall, when the CREP attempted tr> make
it one; and I do not think at the time anybody thought it was a hor-
rendous and horrible thing that had taken place.
]Mr. Lexzx'er. Mr. Taugher testified he thought a peace demonstra-
tion would be beneficial to this McGovem campaign.
Mr. Stearxs. That was Mr. Taugher's opinion.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you discuss that issue with him at any time ?
Mr. Stearns. Not at all.
Mr. Lexzxer. Mr. Chairman, that is all the questions I have.
Senator Baker. Thank you, Mr. Lenzner.
Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompsox". Pardon me; could I have my copy of the transcript?
I have a couple of places marked there.
Mr. Dash. We will exchange the transcript with you.
Mr. Thompsox. Mr. Stearns, you refer on page 2 of your statement :
"I welcome scrutiny now, but not the innuendoes and slanders which
are the last refuge of those who cannot acquit themselves except by
accusing others." What innuendoes and slanders are you referring to ?
Mr. Stearx'S. I am referring principally to the testimony that I
heard Mr. Haldeman give before this committee in which Mr. Halde-
man, as I recall, implied in his characterization, I think, of Avhat Mr.
Segretti was supposed to do — implied that Democratic candidates had
engaged in things like violent disruptions, demonstrations, heckling,
shouting, obscenities, trashing of headquartere, firebombings, stab-
bings of police officers, and so on. Well, that essentially was the larger
smear against our camj^aiffn I Avas talking about. Minor smears of the
campaign were mounted against me in 1972 — attempting to im-
pugn Senator McGovern 's position on the Middle East by imputing
to him a position that I did not hold on the ^Middle East.
Mr. Thompson. You refer on page 1 of your statement to news-
paper accounts of some of committee staff engaging in a fishing ex-
pedition in order to place blame on the Democratic campaign, wliich
sought honestly and decently to provide a different kind of leadership.
Do you resent your being called before this committee, Mr. Stearns?
Mr. Stearx-^s. No. I am here as a voluntary witness. Would you like
me to expand on what I resent ?
Mr. Thompsox. Yes, I would.
4577
Mr. Stearns. What I resent is tlie equilibrium of the situation.
As I understand the thrust of the assistant majority counsel's ques-
tioning— the thrust of his questioning is this : That perhaps a few tele-
phones in California were used in disputed circumstances for a brief
period of time to recruit people as a matter of conscience to participate
in an utterly peaceful assembly; and that perhaps as many as 1,000
■leaflets, as I gather from Mr. Taugher's testimony yesterday, were
placed on 50 tables in 50 diverse locations in Los Angeles,
Mr. Thompson. Do you agree with that part of Mr. Taugher's
testimony ?
Mr. Stearns. No; I do not agree with that. I am saying that on
the basis of what he said. I say, at best in disputed circumstances, that
might have been what had happened.
Mr. Thompson. What circumstances?
Mr. Stearns. Somehow this is being equated with the kind of things
I referred to earlier.
Mr. Thompson. Who is equating that with the kind of things you
referred to earlier ?
Mr. Stearns. I think the manner in which this presentation is being
made.
Mr. Thompson. How is the presentation being made as to equate it
with the kind of things you were talking about 1 minute ago?
Mr. Stearns. I think by inference. Here are the Democrats
Mr. Thompson. By whose inference? Have you read the resolution
that set this committee up ?
Mr. Stearns. No, I have not.
M>. Thompson. Do you not think it would be appropriate to find out
what the mandate of this committee is before you make charges
against this committee and partisanship on the part of the staff?
]\f r. Stearns. No : I do not.
Mr. Thompson. You realize that this resolution requires this com-
mittee to look into the campaign activities of 1972 and that the Demo-
crats are no more immune than the Republicans, and Mr. Dash and
Mr. Lenzner agree with that principle ?
Mr. Stearns [conferring with counsel]. I am sorry, would you state
the question again ?
Mr. Thompson. No, I would not. I think you understand the ques-
tion. I would ask you whether or not you know why you are here
today. Do you feel it was a partisan effort on someone's behalf to bring
you here today to equate the use of the plione bank with bombings and
lootings and things of tliat matter ?
Mr. Stearns. Yes ; my conviction is that is so.
Mr. Thompson. You think that is a partisan effort ?
Mr. Stearns. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. In what way ?
Mr. Stearns. I think this is an attempt to equate a minor disputed
incident with the revelations that this committee has brought before
the public over the past
Mr. Thompson. In what way is it partisan? You answered "Yes"
when I asked you.
Mr. Stearns. I think there is a basic premise, and Mr. Haldeman— —
Mr. Thompson. You can elaborate on that if you wish at a later time
but I am talking about, from the standpoint of partisanship, your being
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 14
4578
called to testify about this particular matter and I assume this has to do
with the committee. If you would be more specific with that, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Stearns. It is my belief there is an attempt to make an equation.
JMr. Thompson. By whom ?
Mr. Stearns. There is an attempt by some members of the staff of
this committee.
Mr. Thompson. Who ?
MV. Stearns. I am not here to make specific
Mr. Thompson. I am asking you to be specific. You have leveled
these charges. I did not bring them up ; you put them in your state-
ment, ^Ir. Lenzner
Mr. Stearns. They are my firm belief. I am not here to namecall.
Mr. Thompson. You are not here to name call.
Mr. Stearns. No.
Mr. Thompson. Well, you already called a few.
Mr. Stearns. No, I did not call anyone any names. In fact, I have
said, and I think I made clear in my statement, that one of the tiling
I appreciate most about politics is the opportunity to meet people
from both parties who I think repi-esent the highest standard of con-
duct, the highest standard of pi-inciples of politics this country should
represent. I am not a professional politician but one of the at-
tractions to me in a political campaign has been the opportunity to
meet the kind of people I have met. I think generally politics is a de-
cent profession in this country. It is a profession that I would like
to see rcDresented in the best possible light.
Mr. Thompson. I agree with all those sentiments. Can we get back
to the question at hand? As I said, you stated in your statement here
that you gave — that the committee staff is on a fishing expedition to
blame the Democratic campaign which sought honestly and decently
to pro\ide a different kind of national leadership. You refer to in-
nuendoes and slanders; you refer to unfounded attacks on Democratic
integrity. Now, here is your ojiportunity, Mr. Stearns, if you want
to be a little more specific than that as to where the partisanshij) comes
in, why ypu have a right to resent, if you do, being called here as
many, many other people haA'e been called and on much more notice,
as a matter of fact, than many other witnesses have had.
Mr. Eeltott. Mr, Thompson, on the notice issue, I got a call at
a])proximately noon on Tuesday. I reached Mr. Stearns in his law
scliool class at about 4 o'clock on Tuesday, this week. He was asked to
be down tliere Tuesday evening and we were down here at 9 o'clock
Wednesday morning, and you know by the new math or the old math
that is less than 24 hours and less thaii the g-uidelines set forth in the
Senate resolution. We, as a matter of court esv, got down here and gave
our best recollection of the events Ave Avere questioned on.
Mr. T'hoa[i>s()n. It is mv understanding tliat a sub))ena had been
issued at tlie time the staffers had negotiated Avith you and agreed to
hold off. That is correct, as a mattei- of fact, is it not, and can be sub-
stantiated if need be — 'but a subpcna had been issued and Ave Avith-
held the subpena \n order for you to bi'ing him in voluntarily to avoid
the stigma of having been subpenaed.
Mr. Mannino. That is not ti'ue — completely untrue. Mr. Stearns is
here A'oluntarilA'.
4579
INIr. Thompson. I am not saying there is any question about his vol-
untarily appearing.
Mr. Manning. What was the basis of your recollection that we were
being subpenaed, and out of the grace of your office withheld the
subpena ? That has never been said to either Mr. Elliott or myself.
Mr. Thompson. I am not concerned as to whether or not it had been
said, I am stating as a matter of fact that, although you never dis-
agreed or you never stated that you would not voluntarily come, as a
matter of what tlie staff was doing, that a subpena had been issued, but
it was not served at your request.
Mr. Manning. That is not true. It was not served because there was
no need to serve and we never requested that you not subpena him.
What Ave said was we would provide Mr. Stearns; there would be no
necessity to subpena. We said nothing about witliholcling a subpena.
Mr. Thompson. You did not request we not subpena him. You said
it would not be necessary to subpena him, is that correct?
Mr. ]\rANNiNG. We said Mr. Stearns would be down here. No one
raised the question of subpena with him and he is here and he is
voluntarily — and we resent the impi-ession he is not here voluntarily.
You have subpenaed a lot of people and you have not had to subpena
INIr. Stearns.
Mr. Thompson. I am talking about Mr. Stearns' treatment and that
which anyone else has received, and I see no difference, frankly.
I refer to page 2 of your statement where you say. "We were open
and frank with tlie press and the American people.'' I don't wish to
equate some of the things we are talking about now to some of the
things you were talking about before. Obviously there can be no
equation. I think it is just as obvious that there have been major wrong-
doings. I would not think that that would be any excuse, under any
sort of legitimate or political philosopliy. to excuse minor wrongdoings
if they are such.
Mr. Stearns. I must object to the use of the term "wrongdoing."
I am not sure what wrongdoing you are alluding to.
Mr. Thompson. Would you say there would be no ethical considera-
tions in organiziniz: or assisting in the organizing of demonstrations
such as the one at Century Plaza ?
Mr. Stearns. I know of no demonstration that was organized by any
McGovern campaign.
Mr. THo:viPSON.-That is not what I asked you, Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Stearns. Xo, I think you were talking about a protected con-
stitutional right.
Mr. Thompson. Of course.
Mr. Stearns. I know nothing that would suggest it was wrongdoing ;
T would not personally do it.
Mr. Thompson. Would you say there would be ethical considerations
im-olved?
Mr. Stearns. I think in almost any decision one makes in his life
there are ethical considerations involved. T don't see it as a wrongdoinar.
^Mr. Thompson. If there is no question about the propriety of it,
I assume there would be no ethical considerations involved, would
there ?
Mr. Stearns. You have lost me.
Mr. Manning. I don't think we heard the question, Mr. Thompson;
would you repeat it ?
4580
Mr. Thompson. Would you say there would be ethical considerations
involved in organizing- a demonstration of this sort ^
Mv. Stearns. I know of no demonstration organized by the JSIc-
Govern campaign.
Mr. Thompson. That is not what I asked you, Mr. Stearns. We have
got direct conflict between your testimony and Mr. Taugher's testi-
mony on a material point. Your motivation and your attitude toward
the matter as well as our specific recollection, I think, is relevant.
Mr. Stearns. Xo ; you don't have a direct material conflict. You have
different recollections that Mr. Taugher and I have given. I would like
to go back to what I said earlier. This meeting was not the reason that
I was iji Los Angeles. It was a minor, incidental event in a nnich more
important day for me. I was accomplishing a much more important
matter. Frankly, I did not i-emember this meeting — at least since the
campaign — until it was mentioned to me by one of the assistant coun-
sels when I first appeared here for a staff interview.
Mr. Thompson. Do you think that if you had a discussion of this
matter with regard to the use of McGovern phone banks — you said a
few phones, I believe the testimony was 12 to 15 phones; you say for
a limited amount of time, I believe the testimony was 2 days. You said
it was shut down, I believe the testimony was it was shut down only
because Senator ^NIcGovern was coming to town and needed the phones.
]Mr. Stearns. This is not my testimony. This is my recollection of
the newspaper article I read which gave an account of what happened.
Mr. Thompson. All right. If you had sat through a convei-sation
like that, involving a matter w'hich evidently accorcling to you, tvould
be contrary to at least your policy and your understanding of the
policy of the ^NIcGovern campaign, and then shortly after that con-
versation had read in the newspapers about the phone banks being
used, whether or not you approved of it, do you think that would be
something that you would remember?
Mr. Stearns. To the best of my recollection, I was never in a meet-
ing in which the incident that you are talking about happened.
Mr. Thompson. Would that not be a significant thing with you in
the midst of a political campaign?
~Siv. Stearns. Well, again you are talking about hypothetical situa-
tions that didn't happen.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, we are.
Mr. Stearns. If it happened or at leas-t if I recollected it happening,
then it might have been a significant thing but you are talking about
an incident which to me was pure hypothesis.
Mr. Thompson. You say there is really no conflict between you and
Mr. Taugher — just a matter of recollection?
]Mr. Stearns. I said there was no conflict on a material point. I said
his recollection was one thing and my recollection was another. I have
given you my l)est recollection and I assume he gave you his best
recollection.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Taugher testihed yesterday on page 8815 of the
transcrii)t:
I am not sure how it first came up. as I said a few moments ago. Tlie meeting
was underway at the time I walked in. the two women were dismissing witli Rieli
tlieir attendance at the prior night's organizational meeting and he—
4581
Referring to you —
as I came in, he then turned to me and brought me up to date on what they had
discussed up to that point.
Mr. Stearns. I don't believe that I am here to give you Mr.
Taugher's recollection.
Mr. TiiOMPSOx. But you are here to respond as to whether or not
this is accurate and as to whether or not this would be something you
remembei".
Mr. Stearns. I have given you my response; I have given you my
best recollection.
Mr. Thompson. That did not occur, to your best recollection ?
Mr. Stearns. To the best of my recollection this did not occur.
Mr. Thompson. You don't think this would be a matter that would
be of significance to you in the midst of a political campaign?
Mr. Stearns. Not if it didn't occur ; no.
Mr. Thompson. What if it did occur ?
Mr. Stearns. Again you are talking about an incident which I don't
think took place and I am not here to testify about things which, to
the best of my recollection, did not happen.
Mr. Thompson. You are about to testify about what you thought
was significant in a political campaign, Mr. Stearns. I thought you
had responsibility for this State.
IMr. Stearns. As I explained, our campaign w'orked in a peculiar
fashion.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, I know.
Mr. Stearns. It was not one in which there was a distinguishable
chain of command. Yes; I was responsible. My responsibility was in
the initial organization of the campaign in each State but the principle
of our campaign — which we followed from the very beginning and I
think you can find evidence of the fact it was followed in almost the
entire record of the campaign — is that once an organization was in
place, the day-to-day authority in that campaign was in the hands of
the people who managed it locally. I mean, as a measure of how im-
portant my control over that State was, as soon as we encountered what
was thought to be a more difficult problem of the campaign — I was
sent to Pennsylvania for a month, even though I was still nominally
the western regional coordinator. jVIy function in any administrative
sense with the campaign stopped at the point that a campaign organi-
zation was in place. It was the nature of our campaign; we were not a
Eepublican campaign. I wish sometimes we had been- — much less
confusion.
Mr. Tho.aipson. Did you hear ]\Ir. Taugher's testimony yesterday
or did vou have a chance to watch it on television?
Mr. K^TEARNS. I heard parts of it yesterday afternoon on a radio
station which then interrupted it to go to a program about the Vice
President. I heard it very late. I came in at the end of it. I tried to
watch it last night, but I went to sleep around 11 o'clock and so I
missed it.
Mr. Thompson. He testified yesterday to the effect that this dis-
continuing of the use of the phone bank was because Senator Mc-
Govern came to town. That they, in fact, approved it. Of course, here
in the reported testimony he also stated that vou approved it ; that he
approved it; that they were used; that after it happened he informed
4582
Ml'. Lu Haas, who was in charge of press relations for that State, tho
full story ; that, in fact, it had been approved beforehand ; that, in fact,
it had been stopped because Senator McGoveni came down and they
needed the telephones. We presented a couple of newspaper articles
and, I believe — perhaps you have one of them with you — wherein Mr.
Haas is quoted and his assistants are both quoted to the etfect that
when they found out about it they concluded it must have been some
self-serving individual Avho did this, and as soon as it was discovered
it was immediately stopped.
Xow, assuming Mr. Taugher's testimony is correct, with regard to
his approval anyway, and assuming that Mr. Taugher's testimony is
correct with regard to what he told Mr. Haas about the facts, would
you call the McGovern response to this matter open and frank with
the press and the American people ?
Mr. Steakxs. I am sorry; it is my recollection that I left, I think to
return to "Washington that very afternoon. I was not there when any
of these discussions took place, presumably, betAveen Mr. Taugher and
Mr. Haas or anyone else.
Mr. Thompson. I am not sure I understand the significance of the
slander that you said had been leveled against you. Is that with regard
to the letter concerning your position on the Arab-Israeli controversy?
Mr. Stearns. Yes. At the October 3 meeting I read into the tran-
script a number of examples of the character of this campaign, includ-
ing the initial statement I signed in 1967 that was in controversy, and
then some examples of how this issue had been used against the McGov-
ern campaign in 1972.
Mr. Manning. Those were marked as exhibits starting at page 67
of the executive session transcript and should be part of your records
for that da3\
Mr. Thompson. Yes, I believe I have them here before me. How was
this used unfairly ?
Mr. Stearns. Well, let me give an example. The way it was used
unfairly was to take views that, first, I did not hold. Views that I had
made clear publicly on any number of occasions. I introduced several
of those occasions into the transcript of this committee, including a
letter which appeared in the Near East report on July 26, 1972, where
I dealt with the cliarges that had been made against me in terms of
my views on the Middle East, and I explained what my current position
was on the Middle East.
My views were widelv ])ublicized. Dai'ticularly in the Jewish press
in this country. An article was introduced from the Jewish Standard
of August 4, 1972, where I stated some of the reasons why I had
changed my opinions on the Middle East in the intervening 5 years
since signing the ad in 1967.
Then, to give some of the examples of how it was used against me :
First, I learned froui an inquiry from a member of the press that Mr.
Shumway was si)reading the notion that I had been a guerrilla leader
for Al Fatah, Avhich is a ridiculous assertion on its face but nonetheless
a dangerous calumnv — the kind of assertion that inspired a great deal
of hate-mail directed at me personally durin.q; the campaign.
Then I learned from Jack Anderson's column on August 24, 1972 :
GOP fielclworkers have started a wliisi^ering campaign against George McGov-
ern's western regional chief, Riclv Stearns, who is heing labeled anti-Israeli
4583
because of a .j-year-okl ad he signed as a student. The ad was construed to be
pro-Arab, but Stearns has now fully endorsed McGovern's pro-Israeli policy.
And Democratic aides call the whisper campaign against Stearns a "blatant
smear."
Then I introduced an ad ^yhicll had been published by the Democrats
for Nixon which I think is a repreliensible and scurrilous piece of liter-
ature. This ad first attempts to associate me with Mr. M. Mehdi, who
is apparently the representative of Palestine terrorist organizations
in the United States.
This is Rick Stearns. He coordinates the McGovern campaign in the West —
at the time of the 6-day war he was a signer of anti-Israel ads in the Washington
Post and Xew York Times .sponsored by anti-Israel elements in the United
States. He wants you to vote for McGovern, his employer.
And goes on to make a similar insinuation against Gary Hart, Mc-
Govern's campaign manager, derived from, to the best of my knowl-
edge a wliolly falacious article which appeared in the George Wash-
ington University student newspaper. This is the kind of slander and
smear I am talking about.
One of the reasons that my role in California was as diminished as
it was, was that I was spending so much time handling this kind of
smear and this kind of charge that I would have been a political
liability for the campaign in the Los Angeles area if I had ever tried
to assert any administrative authority there.
This was a blatant, reprehensible smear which has caused great
damage to my reputation, and I resented it.
Mr. Thompson. Before we get to who is responsible for the smear,
let's make sure we understand exactly what the smear is.
As I understand it, in the letter they refer to an open letter to Presi-
dent Johnson* by Middle East specialists which you signed as inter-
national atfairs vice president, I^'nited States National Student Asso-
ciation. It is about a page and a half letter, and I don't wish to try to
paraphrase it for you — you can do that if you would. But basically I
imagine the major point is that it is their position that the Israelis
should return the land that they had gotten in the recent war.
Would that be the most specific ?
Mr. Stearxs. Xo; I would paraphra.se it differently. I would say —
you know that one of the elements of the ad respectfully urges the
"President to deal with what, at the time — you must remember when we
signed this ad I signed it in my capacity as vice president of the
National Student Association. This was our policy at the time. It was
the official policy and I was the international vice president and the
appropriate person, therefore, to make the signature. Let me finish
characterizing the ad.
Mr. Thompsox. If you will pardon me, on that point, I might ask.
did you personally also believe in the statement ?
Mr. Stearxs. Yes; as I said, at the time, these ads reflected the views
I held in 1967. 1 never equivocated on the fact that they were my views.
As I say, I participated in the ad with the National Student Associa-
tion. It suggested, first, that there would be military withdrawal and
that Israel would return to essentially the borders — the status quo
prior to the 19G7 conflict. The ad condenmed, or said that it could not
condone Arab provocation ; said that there had to be a just and lasting
'Previously entered as part of exhibit 159. see Book 10, p. 4103.
4584
resolution of the refugee problem. It said that the United States
should, in terms of President Eisenhower's wa^'ning; of February 20,
1957, insist on the territorial integrity of eveiy state in the Middle
East. It proposed that negotiations be undertaken on questions relat-
ing to recognition, maritime rights, border agreements, and water dis-
tribution. The premise of the ad was that — what we feared at the time
Avas that the Soviets had been given an opportunity- for intervention
in the area, Avhicli in fact turned out to be a very accurate prediction.
I might say that the U.S. Government essentially adopted and sup-
ported this policy when it voted for TLN". Security Council Kesolu-
tion 242 in 1967. That is the position we had then and, as best I know,
it is still the position the IT.S. Government holds today.
Now, I said that there were two things that motivated me to change
my vicAvs. I think at the time, if I Avere to characterize my vieAvs, I
Avould say they tended to be somcAvhat more sympathetic to the Arabs
than certainly the average American politician tended to be. But there
Avere tAvo things that impelled me to reAnse my views. One Avas Soviet
intervention. The second Avas the Arab campaign of terrorism. I do
not approve of terrorism, I could not approA^e of violence, and I cer-
tainly do not approA^e of the acts that occurred after the Avar and, I
suppose, are occurring noAv at the present time.
Consequently, again my Anews Avere no secret. As I said in my letter
to the Near East Report :
AVith regard to my present views I support the Middle Eastern plank enun-
ciated in tlie platform of the Democratic Party. In fact I managed the floor
adoption by voice A'ote of the stronger language contained in the amehdment
proposed by Senator Jackson. I also support Senator McGovern's position on
the Middle East and have defended it pul)liely on a number of occasions during
the course of the campaign. Tliere is, as I am sure you are aware, a tendency
in the peace movement to assimilate the American posture toward Vietnam,
and its attendant difficulties, with our stance toward Israel. One of the most
positive contributions Senator McGovern and his campaign has made to the
discussion of Middle Eastern affairs is an effective defen.se of the distinction
between the two cases.
In closing, may I add a personal note. I regret that any statement I may have
made 5 years ago has been injected into this campaign as an issue. I doubt that
many people can honestly and accurately re-create their opinion after such a
lapse of time or would necessarily want them in.scribed forever as a final state-
ment. Our past cannot always he made to conform with our perceptions of the
present.
Mr. Thompson. So the original letter to President Johnson was
interpreted at the time as being a pro- Arab letter ?
Mr. Stearns. Certainly; in this advertisement, in fact, it is worse
than that. Democrats for Nixon characterized it as anti-Israel.
Mr. Thompson. Well. Avould you say it is not anti-Israel?
Mr. Stearns. No, I Avould say it is not anti-Israel. Are you saying
that the U.S. Government policy is anti-Israel ?
Mr. Thompson. I am asking you, Mr. Stearns. You said it is pro-
Arab, but it is not anti-Israel.
Ml-. Stearns. I said I described — my sympathies Avere certainly more
pro-Arab than the average American's or the aA^erage American
politician's. I am saying this ad is essentially the U.S. GoA^ernment's
polic}- — then and today.
Mr. Thompson. As you held them before- you changed your mind,
in Avhat Avay Avere those vieAvs misrepi-esented ? The fact that they
Avere referred to as anti-Israel? Is that the misrepresentation?
4585
Mr. Stearns. That is a misrepresentation. Certainly, attempting to
associate me with a representative of the Palestine terrorists, espe-
cially when you remember that this occurs in the context of a hor-
rible massacre at the Olympic games at Munich ; when you have the
publicist for the Republican
Mr. TiiOMPSOX. Pardon me, where is that referred to in the ad ?
Mr. Stearns. It says at the top : "This is him, M. Mehdi ; due to
^Munich, his picture is irrelevant. He helped the Arab propaganda
machine in the United States. He says after Shirley Chisholm, our
second choice would be Senator INIcGovern — 'to this day,' '' in large
type, "Medhi still,-' and so on, "This is Rick Stearns. He coordinates
the McGovern campaign in the West." If that is not an association,
what is ?
"At the time of the 6-day war, he was a signer of anti-Israel ads
in the Washington Post and the Xew York Times" — That is certainly
not true. The ad was never in the New York Times— "sponsored by
anti-Israel elements in the United States. He wants you to vote for Mc-
GoA^ern." I do not think it was sponsored by anti-Israel elements in
the United States. I do not consider myself as an anti-Israel element
nor did I consider the National Student Association as an anti-Israel
element.
Mv. Thompson. Then, it goes on to say : "This is Hubert Humphrey,"
and it quotes Hubert Humphrey as saying : "Senator INIcGovern was
wrong on Israel, has been wrong on labor law, has been wrong on
three other great issues in Calif oiTiia."
Mr. Stearns. They do not disclose what the three issues in Cali-
fornia were.
INIr. Thompson. He quotes Jimmy Roosevelt, quotes Gary Hart, then
a picture of President Nixon and Golda jMeir at the bottom.
You mentioned, I believe, Mr. Van Shumway and the Committee To
Re-Elect the President. This firet came about in the California pri-
mary, did it not, ]Mr. Steams?
Mr. Stearns. I believe that it did. I introduced an advertisement —
not an advertisement, a news article — which ap]5eared in the Los An-
geles Times on June 16, 1972, and suggested that this is one of the
issues that had been raised in Los Angeles.
Mr. Thompson. It says here, and the copy I have does not have a
date. By Bill Boyarsky, would that be the one?
IVIr. Stearns. Yes, it is by Bill Boyarsky.
Mr. Thompson. It says that Frank ^lankiewicz, who headed the
McGovern campaign, says he understands that reprints of the article
had been distributed during the successful California fight against
Senator Hubert H. Hmnphrey.
Mr. Stearns. "WHiere are you reading from ?
]Mr. Thompson. I am reading from the top of the second column,
first paragraph.
Mr. Stearns. All right.
]Mr. Thompson [reading] :
Humphrey has charged McGovern, a dove on Vietnam, would also be dovish in
dealing witli Israeli defense against Arab attacks. In the last days before the
California primary, the Humphrey campaign blitzed Jewish neighborhoods with
literature containing such charges.
Do you know whether or not any of this type of literature concern-
ing you was distributed ?
4586
]Mr. Stearxs. I don't laiow. As I explained earlier, I was working in
the nonprimary States at the time. The only time I was in California
in that period was on the night of the victory party in Los Angeles, I
think on June 6. I don't see that this article says that Senator Hum-
phrey's campaign, if they were circulating this kind of material, were
circulating any material that related to me.
Now it is liard to tell what literature any of us circulated.
Mr. TiKt^MPSox. Do you know whethei- or not any such literature
pertaining to you Avas circulated in California ?
Mr. Si^ARNS. I don't. Mr. Boyarsky says that it Avas an issue in Cali-
fornia, but as I said, I am not sure that we know what material was
being circulated in our names any place.
Mr. Thompson. Or by whom ?
Mr. Stearns. Well, it could just as easily have been — I understand
the committee has heard evidence of material circulated in the names
of various Democratic candidates wliich they did not in fact authorize,
print, or distribute.
Mr. TiTO.MPSON. So what you are saying in effect is you don't know
the source of it?
Mr. Stearns. In California, no.
Mr. Thompson. In the Near East Report, "McGovern-Shriver 197'2,''
it says — what is this Near East Report, by the way ?
Mr. Stearns. I would regard it as a very influential, very objective
publication which is closely allied to the Zionist movement in the
Ignited States. That would be my best characterization. I don't know
a great deal about it. I know I have great admiration for Mr. lyenen
who edits it and whom I discussed this issue with during the summer
of 1972.
Mr. Thompson. The opening paragraph says:
Richard O. Stearns, the 27-year-old Rhodes scholar who holds a key post
in the McGovern campaign, has come under fire because his name appeared on
pro-Arab advertisements after the 6-day war. He has been criticized in columns
by Joseph Alsop, .John P. Roche, and in an anti-]McGovern memorandum cir-
culated by the AFL-CIO.
Were you aware of this memorandum circulated by the AFI./-CIO?
Mr. Stearns. No : I was not.
Mr. Thompson. Do you know Avhere it was circidated ?
Mr. Stearns. No ; not if I was not aware of it.
Let me say just by contrast, you can find this same kind of mate-
rial about anybody in politics. Here is a Jack Anderson report on
November 10, 1971, that the Committee To Re-Elect the President has
employed a gentleman as the head of the Slovak-American division
of the Republican National Committee and as an adviser to the Small
Business Administration, a gentleman who was a Drominent pro-Nazi
propagandist in Slovakia during World War II. This column appears
undei- the headline, "Nixon A])pears a Little Soft on Nazis."
I think this is just as reprehensible as the kind of matei-ial that was
used against me. This is not tlie kind of material we would ever have
considered using in our campaign.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Stearns, T have a few other questions, but I have
taken too much time already and I Avill pass this time.
Senator Baker. Thank you, ^Iv. Thompson.
Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank vou verv much.
4587
Mr. Stoarns, as chief of the research division of the McGovern
Campaign Committee, and as Western States coordinator of the Mc-
(Tovern Campaign Committee, or as any officer of any anthority or
responsibility, did you exer openly or covertly advocate, support, au-
thorize, or direct violent dmonstrations ?
Mr. Stearxs. No, sir.
Senator Inouye. Did you, in those capacities which I just listed, au-
thorize, advocate, support, or direct the printing or publication or dis-
playing of obscene or vulgar placards?
Mr. Stearxs. No, sir.
Senator Ixouye. In those capacities, were you ever aware of any
other persons in similar authority advocating, supporting, directing, or
financing violent demonstrations or the printing or the publication or
display of vulgar, obscene material ?
Mr. Stearns. Xo.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. sir.
That is all.
Senator Baker. Thank you.
Mr. Stearns, I don't want to prolong the line of inquiry you have
dealt with at some length to your opening statement, but I would
like to elaborate on one point to make sure I have it clearly fixed in
my mind. I detect a resentment on your part that you have been called
and that you interpret your being called as a witness as, in some way,
an effort to besmirch the good name of Democrats by trying to elicit
from you testimony of matters that are relatively inconsequential in
your view when related against the rather spectacular allegations
made in other testimony. I say that not because I ask you to agree
with it, but because I want you to know how I react to the totality of
your statement. I am going to stop at that point and ask you to cor-
rect it, to agree with it. or to elaborate on it as you see fit.
Mr. Stearxs. The only elaboration I would make is I think it also
casts aspersions on a man who is my principal inspiration for being in
politics, one of the finest men I ever worked for, who ran a campaign
that I think any man would be proud of. Yes, I do; I think it Avould
be fair to say that I feel some resentment.
Senator Baker. At being called at all ?
Mr. Stearns. Obviously, you know, I am here. At least I think
I am a law student. I have spent more time on this in the last month
than I really have on the law.
But I would say my resentment is not at appearing before the com-
mittee, because I think the committee has, as I said in my statement,
a legislative purpose and at its best, it's politics at its best. But I do
resent the thrust of questions which do cast aspersions, first on my
party, which I think are unfair and wrong, and second, on a man
whom I admire very much.
Senator Baker. I wonder if you could substitute yourself into my
position, and if you would, think back on the idea of seeing questions,
an interrogation of witnesses, queries put to Republicans day after day
and week after week, with my full participation and that of my staff
to elicit all the facts and circumstances, whether they turned out to be
favorable or unfavorable. Would you counsel or advise me to resent
them being called?
Mr. Stearns. Senator, there are times when I would like to be in
your position. But I can't — you are doing your job. I would counsel
4588
you to do the job that you thought was right, that you thought was
your duty as a Senator of the United States. But because I would
counsel you to do that does not mean that I still don't have the priv-
ilege as a private citizen of feeling resentment at what I think ai'e
(luestions that at least tend to cast aspersions on my party and my
candidate.
Senator Baker. I think you have screamed before you are stuck. 1
might point out, Mr. Stearns, that there has not been a single wit-
ness called by the minority staff — not yet; that there has been a high
degree of cooperation between the majoi'ity staff and the minority
start"; that we are trying our dead-level best to follow the mandate
of Senate Resolution 60, which is to inquire into the possibility of
illegal, improper, or unethical activities. And I really caution you not
to feel resentful of it, that questions are put, because we are going
to look into it. We are going to look into it whether it is Republicans
or Democrats, and we are going to let the cliips fall where they may ;
so let us get on about the business of understanding that the public
requires us to inquire into general campaign activities. And questions
are going to be put to you and other witnesses that you might prefer
not to be put. But I really urge you not to resent it, and I do detect
tliat note of resentment in your voice and in your statement.
, Mr. Stearns. Senator, I would never obstruct the work of the com-
mittee. I am here, appearing voluntarily, but I think my own feelings
are my own matter and my own right to express.
Senator Baker. Thank you, sir.
Senator Montoya.
Senator Montoya. Thank you. Senator Baker.
At the very outset, prior to my questioning, I would like to read for
the record, and then submit the same for the record after identification,
the following letter. It is addressed to me from Senator McGovern.
[Reading:]
October 10, 1973.
Dear Senator Montoya : I have examined the picture of Micliael Mc^Iinoway
brought to my office by a member of the staff of the Senate Select Committee oil
Presidential Campaign Activities.
I do not recognize eitlier liis appearance or liis name. No one resembling this
picture was in my room in the Doral during the evening when the California
challenge was being considered at the convention or, as far as I know, at
any other time. Since there was a Secret Service agent stationed immediately
outside the door of my suite whenever I was there and since even close mem-
bers of my staff were cleared to enter only when I wanted to see them, the sort
of access he claims would have been impossible.
With best regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
George McGovern.
It is submitted under oath.
I would like to submit this letter after it is properly identified !
for the record.
Senator Baker. I take it. Senator Montova, that you identified the
letter as the recipient of the letter. If there is no obiection, the letter
will be received and appropriately identified, marked, and made part
of the record.
[The letter referred to was marked exhibit No. 241*.]
Senator Baker. Counsel ])oints out that it qualifies on a second
ground, tliat it would be fully admissible simply at the request of our
•See p. 4743.
4589
colleague, Senator McGovern, but it qualifies under the rule of our
section 26, which permits the submission of statements bearing on the
testimony of previous witnesses. So it is received on both grounds by
the committee as part of the official record.
Senator Montoya. Mr. Stearns, were you aware that any McGovern
personnel were used for the so-called peaceful demonstration in L.A.
against President Nixon ?
Mr. Stearns. No, sir, I was not aware and I do not think anyone
has suggested that any McGovern personnel were used in preparation.
I do not think it was a so-called peaceful demonstration, I think it was
a very peaceful demonstration, from eveiything I have been able to
determine from the press reports.
Senator Moxtoya. It was a peaceful demonstration?
Mr. Stearxs. I would refer to the Los Angeles Times account, where
they refer to a quotation from Police Lieutenant Kenneth Hickman :
Acting as liaison oflScer between liis department and the demonstrators, praised
organizers of the demonstration for their cooperation. They coordinated well
with our department and they kept moving. They obeyed their own monitors and
police directions. The people who organized this were really interested in keeping
it orderly.
As I said earlier, the Los Angeles Times, which certainly cannot be
characterized as a McGovern rag, wrote an article entitled "Demonstra-
tion of Maturity," concludino; "Welcome (^ivility."
Senator Montoya. I think there is a general understanding on the
basis of testimony that the demonstration was peaceful.
Mr. Si'EARXs. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. Did you know anvthing about the leaflets that
were distributed and circulated inviting people to join in the
demonstration?
Mr. Stearns. No, sir, I did not.
Senator Montoya. Now, I think that it is worthwhile to place the
entire matter in proper ))ers)iective as to what transpired prior to the
demonstration. I think Mr. Taugher's testimony is very relevant at
this ]wint in view of what has happened this morning in the question-
ing and the answers by you.
I will quote now from the transcript :
Mr. Hamilton. Do you know if any McGovern staff workers made any calls to
solicit demonstrators?
Mr. Tai'gher. No, they did not. We were interested in the McGovern staff
workers to concentrate on our voter registration drive and for that reason, I did
not want them to participate in this effort.
Mr. Hamilton. What lists were used to make the phone calls?
Mr. Taugher. I.,ists that were compiled by the people sponsoring the demonstra-
tion. I believe on their lists, they had names of persons who had in the past
attended various activities spon.sored by one or another of the groups that made
up the coalition.
Then, the testimony goes on further to indicate that about the only
part that leaflets had in this and attributable to the ^McGovern head-
quarters was the fact that some of these leaflets were j^laced in front
of storefronts that were being used by the McGovern campaign, and
they were merely pasted on the windows, and approximately only
half of the storefronts were utilized for this purpose.
Now, are you aware of these facts ?
Mr. Stearns. No, sir, other than what you read me today. As
I said earlier, I left, I think, on that same afternoon. I left to return
4590
to "Washington and could not haA'e monitored or been aware of any of
the preparations for the demonstration.
Senator Montoya. Now, there were some telephone calls made, but
they were made, apparently, by people who were not associated with
McGovern. They were the people handling the peaceful demonstration.
INIr. Stearns. That appears to be ]Mr. Taugher's testimony ; yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. Now, there has been quite an attempt made here
this morning to equate A with B and so forth. Now, do you know of
any tricks that were engaged in by the McGovem forces against the
Kepviblicans in the last campaign?
Mr. Stearns. No, sir, I do not.
Senator INIontoya. Do you know of any false advertising that was
engaged in by the IMcGovern forces against the Eepublicans in the last
campaign ?
Mr. Stearns. No, sir ; I do not.
Senator ]Montoya. Do you know whether there w^as any distribution
of misleading literature on the part of the McGovern forces?
Mr. Stearns. No, sir.
Senator JNIontoya. I am citing the instances testified to by Doug
Kelly, who was one of the masters in that kind of campaign for the
Republican National Committee.
Mr. Stearns. I am sorry, sir, I am not familiar with this.
Senator ]\Iontoya. All right. Now, ai-e you aware of any fake invi-
tations that were sent by IMcGovern forces trying to confuse people?
Mr. Stearns. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Such as luncheon invitations to Nixon headquar-
ters and so forth ?
Mr. Stearns. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Are you aware of any fake press releases that
w^ere delivered to the press in behalf of the opposition?
Mr. Stearns. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Are you aware of any false letters being circu-
lated in the campaign by the IMcGovern forces ?
Mr. Stearns. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Are you aware of any stinkbombs in any of the
Nixon picnics or barbeques or meetings?
Mr. Stearns. No, sir.
Senator ]\Iontoya. Are you aware of any other disruptions of any
Nixon meetings sponsored by any of the McGovern forces ?
Mr. Stearns. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Are you aware of any infiltration of Nixon fimd-
raising dinners or Republican fundraising dinners on the part of
McGovern forces ?
Mr. Stearns. No, sir.
Senator INIontoya. Are you aware of any sabotage activity in the
Republican National Convention that might have been sponsored by
the McGovern forces?
i\Ir. Stearns. No, sir. I am not.
Senator Montoya. So far as you know, the McGovern forces con-
ducted as clean a campaign as is possible ?
Mr. Stearns. Yes, sir, I think that is a fair characterization.
Senator Montoya. That is all.
Senator Baker. Senator Gurney.
4591
Senator Gurnet. Mr. Chairman, I was not going to ask any ques-
tions at all, but I will ask one. Before I do, though, I would like to
make an observation.
I have the same feeling as the acting chairman, Senator Baker, Mr.
Stearns, that there is a charge here that you were brought for a
partisan purpose. I would like to point out that your first interview
and yovir being called here today was a decision made by the Demo-
cratic counsel. The Eepublicans had nothing to do with it at all. You
are one of their witnesses, not one of our witnesses. As the chairman
has pointed out, we have 3'et to produce a single witness before this
committee. "VVe have not put on our case yet. A\lien we do, I hope and
I am sure we will put on witnesses that do have material facts to
contribute something to this affair.
My pointing that out is no criticism for bringing the witness at all,
because I understand, it is my understanding you were brought for the
specific purpose because there is a conflict in testimony with another
witness.
Is that not right, Mr. Dash ?
Mr. Dash. Yes.
Senator Gurne}", I just want to confirm that the witness is being
brought by the committee, and I think that we ought to really make
clear for the record, that there really is not a minority witness or a
majority witness. Frankly, as chief counsel for the full committee, we
have produced this witness, and he has been — we have discussed this
Avith Mr. Thompson, minority counsel. This is a committee witness,
and our statf — the full staff — has been supportive producing the
witness.
We could not, by the way, know whether or not we were going to call
]\Ir. Stearns until we heard ^Ir. Taugher's testimony.
Senator Gurxey. I understand,
Mr. Dash. Actually, it was on th^t basis, because of the question
of discrepancy, that it became necessary to produce the witness, in
fairness to Mr. Stearns.
Senator Gurney. I do understand, too, and I am glad you brought
I this point out, that Republican counsel does confer or you confer
with Republican counsel on witnesses being brought. I simply pointed
out the initiation of the interview as well as the decision on bringing
the witness really is not ours, that is all, to straighten out this business
of any partisan business.
Senator Baker. Senator Gurney, if you would yield for a moment on
that point, I really think, in searching my own reaction to the witness'
testimony, that is as disturbed as I guess I can recall, that this is the
first witness — and I do not know how many witnesses we have — the
first witness that has laid the allegation against the committee that
I he was called for political reasons. I must confess I did not react fairly
to that. I believe all the witnesses have been called in full concurrence
'- of majority and minority counsel, and they have all appeared as
committee witnesses, and I fully expect will continue that practice, to
call witnesses only as committee wntnesses as time goes by. So for my
part, I would like to underscore Senator Gurney's statement that we
are calling no witnesses for an overt political purpose, but only for a
factfinding mission and with a high degree of cooperation between the
very excellent majority staff and minority staff".
4592
I yield.
Senator Gtlt^ney. That certainly is true.
I do have one question. A short time ago, ]Mr. Slivmnway called a
member of the staff and said that he has never heard of yon, he has had
no dealings with you, and he did not put out any statement such as
you have indicated here. Would you elaborate on your charge, your
testimony that Mr. Shumway put out a statement by you ?
]\f r. Stearxs. Yes. I did not say he put out a statement ; I said that he
had been spreading a rumor among the press. This came to my atten-
tion when a member of the press came — called me — in this case a for-
eign con-espondent from a German newspaper whose name I do not re-
member— who asked me as a feature story for his news service in
Germany if I would contribute some details and vignettes from my
experience as a guerrilla leader, presumably in the Golan Heights
or somewhere. When I picked myself up off the floor, I asked him
where he had ever gotten the idea that I had had any experience as a
guerrilla leader anywhere, and he said that he had been told that by
Mr. Shumway at the CREP.
Naturally, I was furious. I then went to a gentleman who is a close
personal friend of mine, whom I consider one of the most honorable
men I have known in politics, Mr. Patrick Buchanan. I related this
incident to liim and asked if he would tell Mr. Shumway that I
thought this went beyond the bounds of any propriety. I presume that
is what Mr. Buchanan did, because no similar rumors came to me
again.
Senator Gfrxey. What was the name of the reporter ?
Mr. Stearns. I said I do not recall. He was a German, foreign corre-
spondent from a German paper.
Senator Gitixey. What is the paper he represents ?
Mr. Stearxs. I am sorry. I don't recall. This is back in 1972.
Senator Gitixey. Well, that is not -so long ago. It is last year. "Wliat
date did you talk to him, or did he talk to you ?
Mr. Stearxs. I would guess that this must have been sometime
around mid-July.
Senator Gurxey. And where ?
Mr. Stearxs. He called me at my office in Washington, the Mc-
Govern office.
Senator Gurxey. You didn't meet with him in person ; he called you
on the i^hone, is that it ?
Mr. Stearxs. He called me on the telephone, yes.
Senator Gurxey. I must say, Mr. Stearns, the great big thing you
made of this, I don't understand why you don't recall his name, the
paper he writes for, or anything about it. If it made that big an
impression and upset you so much, I don't understand why you don't
recollect his name.
Mr. Stearxs. Let me explain. It is not just this incident that made
a big impression. In fact, I was under heavy attack because of the
alleged position I had on the Mideast. I was receiving daily abusive
letters, abusive telephone calls. My OAvn position in the campaign was
jeopardized. I am convinced — in fact, I am sure as Mr. Evans and
Mr. Novak, in two of the articles I introduced suggested, the issue of
my continuing in the campaign was brought to barely this. This was
just another incident in what looked to me, and I am convinced, was a
calculated campaign to smear me.
4593
Senator Gurnet. Well, but I must say, ^Ir. Steams, I can under-
stand why you would be upset, but don't you think j\Ir. Shimiway
might be upset, too? He has already called here, very ang-ry', saying
that he never heard of you, he never had any dealings Avith you, he
never issued any such statement, and the best thing you can do here
for us is one of these sources.
Sometimes I think the source family is the biggest family in the
United States, bigger tlian Smith and Jones. When anybody wants to
make an accusation against somebody, it is always Mr. Source. And
you have done it against Mr. Shumway.
Now, I suggest you find out the name of this German reporter and
the paper he works for and give it to the committee, and we will iim
this down.
Mr. Stearns. I will do my best.
Senator Gurney. And find out who is telling the truth. That is
what I would like to know, and that is the purpose of the committee.
I don't have any other questions.
Senator Baker. Senator Weicker.
Senator Weicker. Well, along that line, I think it might be help-
fid, Mr. Chairman, if we also communicate with Mr. Buchanan, who
I gather could corroborate or not corroborate the stoiy which Mr.
Steams has told the committee. So I would suggest that the commit-
tee contact Mr. Buchanan and ask whether or not he recollects such
an occurrence, and this might assist in ascertaining the truth.
Senator Baker. If the Senator will yield, if there is no objection on
the pait of the committee, I will request committee staff to make a
full inquiry into all of the circumstances attejidant on this incident
and report to the committee.
Senator Gurney. I think that would be excellent, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. Fine, although — I would say I would like to know — •
I would not mind seeing an inquiry into the full scope of this cam-
paign that was run against me, although I appreciate the opportunity
the committee has given for me to clarify now, in public forum, what
my own views on the jNIideast were, and what the circumstances that
led to this campaign and the campaign of 1972 were.
Senator Baker. I take it you would be willing to cooperate with the
committee counsel in gathering all the facts on this in an effort to
identify the source, our efforts to compare this testimony to Mr.
Buchanan's recollection and Mr. Shumway's as well.
Mr. Stearns. Yes.
Mr. Elliott. Senator, we respectfully made that suggestion in ex-
ecutive session and Avould appreciate working with you to clean that
situation up.
Senator Baker. Thank you.
Mr. Elliott. I think Mr. Justice Frankfurter made a very astute
observation Avhen he said we cannot deny as judges what we know as
men. You gentlemen are a very sophisticated group of national polit-
ical figures, and I believe that there is not one of you seated there or
anyone in this room who would believe that the use of code words or
ethnic vilifications or anything else can elevate the political dialog at
all, and I think this is such a very vicious situation that we should
attempt to get to the bottom of it.
Senator Baker. Thank you.
Senator Weicker.
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 15
4594
Senator Weicker. I don't have any specific questions of the wit-
ness, Mr. Chairman, but I must express a questionino; attitude toward !
both the majority and minority counsel on this matter of the Century
Plaza incident alid exactly how it relates to the mandate of this com-
mittee. I mean by that, that it has been established, I think, both by
the testimony of witnesses and also more specifically by the testimony
of Officer Hickman, that the demonstration was peaceful, Now, the
conflict-in-testimony ar^unent is raised as to who did what relative
to McGovern's people in California and the actual demonstrator in
organizing the demonstration. The difficulty that I have with that
thrust or the thrust of such questioning, whether it is from the ma-
jority or the minority, is that once it has been established that the dem-
onstration was peaceful, it seems to me that we are getting into an area
of the right of every American. It does not — I would hope that we are
not purporting that such activity is either illegal, improper, or un-
ethical. Yet at times, the questioning, as I say, from both sides has
seemed to intimate that that aspect of the Century Plaza situation
which related to the organizing of the demonstration, was either il-
legal, improper, or unethical.
I recall a passage ; I brought it with me today. This rather bothered
me even during yesterday's questioning. This is from Mark Twain, "A
Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court,"' which I thought was
particularly applicable in this situation, and something I think all of
us might remember.
He says in that book :
You see, my kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions
or its officeholders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal
thing. It is the thing to watch over and care for and be loyal to. Institutions are
extraneous, they are its mere clothing and clothing can wear out, become ragged,
cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease and death.
To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags, that is
a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal. It belongs to monarchy, was invented
by monarchy, let monarchy Iceep it. I was from Connecticut, whose constitution
declares : "That all political power is inherent in people and all free govern-
ments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit that they
may have at all times an undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their form of
government in such manner as they may think expedient."
T'nder that gospel, the citizen who thinks he sees that the commonwealth's
political clothes are worn out and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a
new suit is disloyal. He is a traitor. That he may be the only one who thinks he
sees this decay, does not excu.se him, it is his duty to agitate anyway, and it is
the duty of the others to vote him down if they do not see the matter as he does.
Xow, I don't think anything can explain better the basis for our
right as Americans to agitate, to assemble peacefully for the bringing
about of change. T just want to make it clear that once we have estab-
lished the fact that the demonstration at the Century Plaza was
peaceful — and I think this lias been well established by a variety
of witnesses and certainly principally the Los Angeles Police Depart-
ment— then for us to pursue a line of incjuiry, whether on the majority
or minority staff, as to how persons got together, whether in the form
of a McGovorn campaign or as individuals or what have you, in my
thinking has no relevance to the mandate of this committee and in
fact, embarks us on a very dangerous course of conduct. I just wanted
to get that out while I had the oi)portunity.
INIr. Dash. Senator Weicker. and ]Mr. Chairman, T think it is im-
portant to put on the record the relevance of producing the witnesses
4595
yesterday and today. I think the record is clear that when Mr. Halde-
man testified and some other witnesses testified this particular incident
was referred to and was referred to as a violent demonstration and
that the committee was invited by Mr. Haldeman and some other
witnesses to investigate that, and I think as the record stood at that
time, all that the public knew and all that the record showed was
that the Century Plaza demonstration was a very violent demonstra-
tion that prevented President Nixon from being able to exercise his
first amendment rights to speak and to present himself as the President
of the United States.
Senator Weicker. Counselor, that, I repeat, that fact having been
established there is no disagreement.
Mr. Dash. We had to do it publicly.
Senator Weicker. That is good evidence in relation to previous
testimony. What I am afraid I have to question is a line of questioning
which involves not with the peacefulness of the demonstration, not
with that at all. but rather as to whether individuals could consult and
get together and form a part of that demonstration. I don't think
that aspect of what happened is a proper line of inquiry for this
committee.
Senator Baker. I think that— I am sorry, are you through, Senator
Weicker ?
Senator Weicker. Yes. I am through.
Senator Baker. I think I might note for the record, I have no dis-
agreement with my colleague or counsel, but I have some difference of
recollection about the characterization of the rally, but the record
itself will speak for that.
We need not press it further ; I think the testimony has been useful.
Are there other questions, jNIr. Lenzner ?
Mr. Lexzxer. Senator, I just wanted to add also that we felt that
after we did investigate this incident in California, that in view of
the fact we did confirm that some campaign resources had been used,
we felt the committee might want to review that in terms of whether
that was appropriate for campaigning under our mandate to use re-
sources, even though it was a peaceful demonstration, to participate
in any kind of demonstration, and that comes within the legislative
purposes of this committee.
Senator Baker. Thank you very^ much, Mr. Lenzner.
Mr. Lexzxer. I just wanted to ask one other question.
INIr. Stearns, I asked prior, based on INIr. Taugher's recollection and
Mrs. INIacKenzie's, that you were present during that conversation. We
did discuss yesterday, and I think on October 3, you had been there,
or you had recollected you had been there, as they recollect, what
would your reaction have been in terms of making recommendations
to that group of people, what resources the headquarters could supply
to the demonstration.
Mr. Stearxs. ]Mr. Lenzner. I really question whether that is a
proper question.
Mr. Lexzer. Well, you have answered it to us on prior occasions
I and T wonder why you don't want to answer it today.
Mr. Stearxs. I am in a public session. I don't feel that I am here
to speculate on things that didn't happen — to the best of my recollec-
tion didn't happen.
4596
Mr. Lenzner. Can you make any recommendation to this commit
tee in terms of legislation as to whether
Mr. Stearns. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner [continuing]. As to whether legislation ought to be
enacted on the issue of the use of resources by a political campaign
to aid a demonstration, peaceful or nonpeaceful.
Mr. Elliott. There are substantial constitutional questions in any
type" of legislation-
Senator Baker. Just one moment. I don't mean to press the wit-
ness nor to disagree unnecessarily with counsel, but I suggest, unless
there is disagreement by my colleagues, that a hypothetical question
based on facts in the record to underlie the opinion of a witness as to
the desirability or undesirability of the enactment of legislation by
Congress is a proper question.
Mr. Lenzner. Yes.
Mr. Elliott. The only question is, he had been asked for a legal
conclusion, there are constitutional problems with that type of legisla-
tion. In that context he is certainly free to answer your question but I
just wanted to make sure that is the context in which we answer it.
Senator Baker. It is the witness' prerogative to answer the ques-
tion but the Chair rules the question is admissible.
Mr. Stearns. I certainly want to make clear if I answer I am
answering on a clearly hypothetical basis on events which I do not
recollect happening. I was in full accord with the policy of the cam-
paign that the Senator had made clear, that everyone in respofisibil-
ity, had made clear ; we made clear we assumed everybody in the cam-
paign knew what our policy was. Even in the most elementary political
sense of political tactics it could not have been in our interest to run
the risk of being associated with any violent demonstrations.
Now, in terms of the legislative recommendation, I again have only
begun a legal education but I agree with my counsel that I think you
are skirting an area where there are serious constitutional issues that
should be raised.
Now, by your question were you asking me generally what I thought
the recommendations ought to be?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes, particularly in view of the fact you said the !
policy was well understood, despite it being well understood, it was a
de minimis application of resources by the campaign for peaceful dem-
onstration.
I am asking now, is that in your opinion, an area that this committee
ought to review for possible legislation or some other suggestion?
Mr. Stearns. I think you should review it with the constitutional in-
hibitions in mind, but the warning that I would make is that you are
very close now to talking about legislating people's attitudes and con-
duct. I don't think decency really can be legislated. I think decency
can be inspired by example. I think there are other reforms that can be
made in the political system in this country that will encourage again
by their exemplary nature, a decent kind of politics.
I think the most obvious one is — T think it was a bill that I was very
familiar within the campaign — was the Campaign Finance Act of 1971
which made a great step, I think, toward placing restrictions on the
way money was raised and the way money was used in a campaign. I
think the next logical step and the one that I Avould like to see take
4597
place is a move to some full kind of Federal financing of Federal cam-
paigns. I think that would be the most heartening step that this com-
mittee could recommend in terms of legislation.
But I do think when you get into the question of attempting to
legislate what people think or their standard of decency I think it be-
comes a very difficult issue, and I agree there are some constitutional
questions I think ought to be considered in that regard.
Mr. Lexzner. I agree with that. I am wondering whether we could
get your views in writing later, perhaps after you have had some
thought, as to whether we can deal with, not the question of legislating
people's thoughts and ideas, but on the question of the use of resources
based on campaign contributions in a campaign, whether it is in this
situation or in the situation we had with prior witnesses, of using cam-
paign contributions to employ people like Mr. Segretti, Benz, and
Kelly, and that is what I am focusing on.
Mr. Stearxs. Yes. I understand.
Mr. Lenzxer. Thank you.
Senator Baker. ]VIr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompsox. Mr. Chairman, just one or two more questions. In
that line obviously there is some disagreement as to the propriety of
using resources in this manner. I might make the observation that it
would appear that Mr. Hass, the McGovern people in California, had
some reservations about the wisdom or propriety of it, from their re-
action to it in stating that as soon as it was found out about it was
stopped. I think that is a fair observation to make, and I look at your
own testimony in executive session, and you state
Mr. Elliott. What page are you on ?
Mr. Thompsox. On page 44.1 wnll start back on page 43 at line 20:
Mr. LiEBENGooD. First. let me ask you this : Do you know any instance when
a local McGovern campaign organization participated in a demonstration against
the President during the campaign?
Mr. Stearns. If the question is, "Do I know of any place the McGovern cam-
paign participated in or McGovern campaign organization participated in or
promoted as a matter of policy a demonstration," the answer is no.
Mr. LiEiBENGOOD. What was the basis for that policy?
Mr. Steahns. Well, it was our feeling that one of the major difficulties we
had, I mean just from a tactical point of view, with McGovern's acceptability
was the association which had developed in the minds of some McGovern mili-
tant protests, so obviously this is a matter of political tactics. Any demonstration
that was conducted, particularly if it was in any way identified with McGovern,
had to work against our benefit. That was certainly the tactical consideration
for the policy and I think there were probably ethical considerations that
would have come into play at that point, too.
Is it an unjust inference to conclude that there v.as a consideration
of propriety in your own mind with regard to this kind of activity?
Mr. Ste.\rxs. I mean you are repeating something that I have al-
ready— I said in response, I think to your earlier question.
Mr. Thompsox. Indulge me, if you would, and repeat it again.
Mr. Stearxs. All right, I will repeat it exactlv as it is here, the
question is: "Do I know of any place that the McGovern campaign
participated in, or McGovern campaign organization participated in
or promoted as a matter of policy, demonstrations?" The answer is
"No."
Mr. Thompson. What I am asking you is what kind of ethical con-
siderations would have come into play at that point ?
4598
What did you mean by that statement ?
Mr. Si'EARNS. I think I said that ethical considerations would prob-
ably come into play at that point. My testimony has been that ethical
considerations did not come into play because I cannot recollect this
incident that you are talking about. I am saying as a matter of policy
we did not organize or promote demonstrations nor would have.
Mr. Thompson. That is not responsive to my question. I concede
your testimony is that it was not policy to do that, that your testi-
mony is that you did not promote that, that you did not condone or
approve that.
But we have had discussion here as to the propriety of it and you
have addressed yourself to that before and I am wondering, and I
am referring to Mr. Hass' statement and the McGovern statement
about cutting it off, and so forth; I refer to your OAvn previous testi-
mony that ethical considerations would have to come into play prob-
ably, probably on that point.
Now. if you consider that this is a proper campaign activity, not
from the standpoint of a person having a right to parade or demon-
strate if he wishes to do so peacefully, which is ol3viously constitu-
tionally protected, but from one political organization's standpoint
against another, you state here that there were probably some ethical
considerations that would have to come into play at some point.
Would you elaborate on that ?
Mr. Stearns. Yes. I think a kind of ethical consideration, had I
been, as Mr. Haldeman was, in a campaign in which he received a
memo Avhich said 100 people were going to produce obscene signs at
a rally of the President in 1971, I think in North Carolina, and
against the Reverend Billy Graham, and if I took that memorandum
and wrote "good" in one column and I wrote "great'' also next to it,
I think that certainly some ethical consideration comes into play. That
would be an ethical consideration.
Mr. Thompson. I agree a good defense is a good offense but what
was in your mind ?
Mr. Stearns. I had never •
i\Ir. Thompson. What ethical considerations were you referring to
when you stated that they might come into play ?
Mr. Stearns. No one ever gave me a memo
]Mr. Thompson. I am not asking you.
Mr. Stearns [continuing]. Saying we were going to play-
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Stearns, if you tell me you do not wish to
answer that question then I will drop the question. You haven't yet.
Mr. Stearns. I just don't understand.
Mr. Thompson. I am reading from your own testimony, Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Stearns. I have given you an example of an ethical
consideration.
Mr. Thompson. You referred to it yourself; what did you have in
mind when you were referring to it ?
Mr. Stearns. Just that.
Mr. Thompson [reading]. "There was certainly the tactical consid-
eration for the policy and I think there was probably considerations
that would come into play at that point, too."
Mv. Stearns. Yes, and I just gave you an example of an ethical
consideration that would come into play.
4599
Mr. Thompson. What ethical consideration would come into play
if this Avas used in the jNIcGovern telej^hone bank, which was the ques-
tion you were asked?
Mr. Stearns. I don't recall ever being at a point at which that
fthical consideration was posed to me.
]Mr. Thompson. What were you referring to in your testimony ?
Mr. Stearns. What I just described to you.
Mr. Thompson. What, Mr. Haldeman's memo?
Mr. Stearns. I am sorry.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Haldeman's memorandum, is that what you are
referring to ?
Mr. Stearns. You asked for a kind of ethical consideration.
Mr. Thompson. I asked for the kind of ethical consideration that
you had in mind when you referred to it here. You are stating that
there was no question in your mind at the time you gave this testi-
mony as to the propriety of the matter.
Mr. Manning. "\Miicli matter are you talking about, Mr. Thompson ?
Mr. Thompson. I am talking about the question I read.
Mr. ]NL\NNiNo. Yes, you said the phone banks and the question does
not say anything about the phone banks, the question is: "Do you
know of any instance when a local McGovern compaign organization
promoted or participated in a demonstration against the President,
against the campaign?"
Mr. Thompson. All right.
Mr. ]VLa.nnino. You read Mr. Stearns' answer and he has given you
that.
Mr. Thompson. I assume that the use of the phone bank would be
promoting or participating in.
]Mr. Elliott. Is your question then, sir, whether the use of the
telephone is unethical ?
Mr. Thompson. My question is what he had in mind when he re-
ferred to the general overall policy as not being a wise policy from
a tactical standpoint; what ethical consideration he was talking about.
Mr. Stearns. I said all of the following ethical considerations
come into play and I said if anyone were in a situation where they
were encouraging hostile behavior, encouraging obscenity, encourag-
ing violent demonstrations, that is an ethical consideration. That is
what I had in mind at that point.
Mr. Thompson. Are you aware of a typewritten document entitled
"The Muskie Accountability Project" which was written by Mr.
Stewart Mott ?
Mr. Stearns. Yes, a copy of that was mailed to me during the cam-
paign, and a copy of it M'as shown to me by one of the assistant coun-
sels in the October 3 — no, the prior one, at one of the two interviews.
Mr. Thompson. This refers to Senator Muskie as, I believe among
other things, a liar, and that his father was a draft dodger and, as I
understand, was prepared bv Mr. Mott himself.
A^lio is Mr. Mott ?
ISIr. Stearns. Mr. Mott describes himself as a philanthropist. I
think he lived in New York — lives in — I think has moved to Wash-
ington, D.C As I understand it he is one of the heire to the General
Motors fortune. He is a gentleman with, you know, his own interests
and predilections in politics. As T explained, and I have given you a
copy of the document you asked for, I explained why we would not
4600
have used material like that and I explained then, the reason we
didn't is that we had — we obviously had — done our own homework,
we didn't need anyone on his own initiative to supply us with material.
Mr. Thompson. Pardon me. Did you have any personal contact with
Mr. Mott during the campaij^n^
Mr. Stearns. Yes, but not on any matter that related to Senator
Muskie. At one time Mr. Mott sponsored a meeting' between the
Lindsay, Chisholm, and ISIcCarthy forces of which I was one of the
McGovern representatives, and at that time we tried to discuss ways
in which we could minimize hostility at least among those four groups
which were seen as the liberal wing of the party.
Mr. Thompson. Did you provide any documentation or any in-
formation whatsoever with regard to Senator Muskie's voting record
to Mr. IMott?
Mr. Stearns. Not to the best of my knowledge, but if he had asked
for it I certainly would have given it to him. You have seen a copy
of the material I prepared, it was taken mostly from the votes pro-
duced by the Senate itself. It is a matter, a factual description,
Senator IMuskie's voting record, a summary to it, and in fact as I re-
call, on a number of points I commend Senator Muskie's record, in
fact a couple of places stating his record was better than Senator
McGovern's in some respects; it was completely neutral and very pro-
fessionally done, although I cannot vouch for the mistakes. I reviewed
1,600 or 2,000 votes over a 7-year period but you have a copy of that.
INIr. Thompson. Did you have a discussion with ISIr. INIott after the
Muskie accountability project came out about it?
]Mr. Stearns. To the best of my knowledge, no.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. No further questions.
INIr. ]M AN NINO. May we request the IVIuskie memorandum be made
a part of the record? It was supplied after the executive session and
I think it may be relevant.
Mr. Stearns. May I also request I get the original back, it is the
only one I have.
Mr. Thompson. I have no objection. I do not have it in my posses-
sion.
Senator Ervin. How long a memorandum is it ?
Mr. Stearns. I am sony, sir?
Senator Ervin. How long a memorandum is it?
Mr. Stearns. I think it is too long to — I tliink it is a waste of the
taxpayer's money — I think it runs 140 pages. I would suggest — there
are two summaries attaclied to the end; one Senator McGovern's
record and one Senator Muskie's record, those are only about 12 pages,
that might l>e the section to be included.
Senator Ervin. Let the summary of the Muskie record be entered
as an exhibit. It is my understanding that the McGovern record is not
available.
[The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 242.*]
Mr. ^Iannino. Thank you. Senator.
Senatoi- Ervin. Senator ]\rontoya.
Senator ^NTontota. No questions.
Senator Eratn. "Well, thank you veiy much. You are excused.
The committee stands in i-ecess until 2 o'clock.
•See p. 4744.
4601
[Whereupon, at 11 :55 a.m., the committee was recessed, to recon-
vene at 2 p.m., thi > same day.]
Afternoox Session, Thursday, October 11, 1973
• Senator Montoya [presiding]. The committee will be in order.
Mr. Dash, will you call the first witness?
Mr. Dash. Yes, Mr. Frank Mankiewicz.
Senator Moxtoya. Mr. Mankiewicz, will you raise your right hand?
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; so help you God?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I do.
Mr. Dash. ]Mr. Mankiewicz, I understand that you are here without
subpena and voluntarily appearing as a witness before this com-
mittee.
TESTIMONY OF FRANK MANKIEWICZ
Mr. Mankiewicz. That is correct.
Mr. Dash. And you do not have counsel with you ?
]Mr. Mankiewicz. I do not.
Mr. Dash. Do you have a statement to read to the committee?
Mr. ]Mankiewicz. Yes, I do.
Mr. Dash. Would you read that statement, please ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
am happy to have this opportunity to testify before your committee to
present this statement and to answer an}^ questions I can about the
1972 campaign.
We have all heard, thanks to these hearings and other investigations,
both public and private, of a wide variety of "dirty tricks," of sabotage
and of espionage and of an unprecedented assault on the integrity of
the political process itself. I should like to take this opportunity to
describe what is, in my view, one of the most serious of these assaults —
one of the most dangerous of all the attempts to cover up what was
done by the Nixon campaign in 1972.
I refer to the systematic attempt by administration witnesses before
this committee, either presently in the WHiite House, recently in the
AVhite House, or controlled either by the White House or the Nixon
campaign, to convey to the American people the idea that the actions
I of which they were admittedly or proved guilty, are somehow acts
common to American politics and political campaigns.
I think it imjiortant for someone to state, clearly and firmly, that
these "dirty tricks" are not politics as usual — that American politics
does not include any history of, or tolerance for sabotage, espionage,
perjury, forgery or burglary. The political process does not, and has
not, countenanced firebombing of Government institutions or the slan-
dering of an opponent by accusing him of sexual misconduct — or, to
be sure, slandering the memory of a slain President by the use of a
forgery which accuses him of murder. American "politics as usual"
does not include stealing documents from an opponent in order to
photograph and pass them on to favored journalists, nor plotting to
kidnap those with whom you may disagree — nor does it traditionally
include wiretapping or bugging, the throwing of stinkbombs, or hiring
people to creat disturbances or riots in the name of your opponent.
And it has certainly never included — at the Presidential level — using
4602
agencies of Government to harass and punish your "enemies" nor the
use of special White House gumshoes to count the bottles in a Senator's
trash.
Senator Moxtoya. INlr. Mankiewicz, we have a roll call on the floor,
so I am going to have to recess the hearing.
[Recess.]
Senator IMontoya. The committee will be in order.
Mr. Dash.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Mankiewicz, do you wish to continue your statement?
If you want to go back a sentence or two to get your context, you
may.
Mr. ^Mankiewicz. "Politics as usual" has certainly never included
using agencies of Goverimient to harass and punish one's enemies nor
the use of special White House gumshoes to count the bottles in a
Senator's trash.
There is grave danger in all this. I think we are strong enough as a
Nation to survive Watergate and the crimes with which that word is
now forever associated ; I doubt if we are strong enough to survive for
very long the widespread belief that those actions are tlie normal things
to expect in the practice of electoral politics. And yet, we have seen —
over the past months — one witness after another proclaim the notion
that "both sides do it," that "this is typical politics," or that somehow
the Nixon people's activities were justified because "the other side" had
done the same things. This steady stream can have been no accident.
And if it is believed, then the already lowered esteem which many now
have for our political system will sink even lower, and the final
Watergate dirty trick will have been played — on all of us.
Let me cite only one example. In his prepared testimony, H. R.
Haldeman listed the following — and I quote now from his testimony :
Violent demonstrations and disruption, heckling or shouting down speakers,
burning or bombing campaign headquarters, physical damage or trashing of,
headquarters and other buildings, harassment of candidates' wives and families i
by obscenities, disruption of the national convention by splattering dinner guests
with eggs and tomatoes, indecent exposure, rock throwing, assaults on dele-'
gates, slashing bus tires, smashing windows, setting trash fires under the gas .
tank of a bus, knocking policemen from their motorcycles.
Mr. Haldeman then went on to charge that these were —
all activities which took place in 1072 — against the campaign of the President
of the United States by his opponents. Some of them took place with the clear
knowledge and consent of agents of the opposing candidate in the last election ;
others were acts of people who were clearly unsympathetic to the President I
but may not have had direct orders from the opposing camp."
Now that statement is false in whole and in each part. There is:
no activity listed there which had the knowledge and consent of any 1
agent of the McGovern campaign, and no evidence of any kind has i
been presented — or ever will be presented, for none exists — to the
contrary. Furthermore. Ave now know, from testimony before this
committee, that some o those acts were in fact committed by agents
of the Nixon campaign — agents provocateurs, hired for that purpose.
And from Mr. Haldeman's wi-itten expression that some prospec-
tive violence at a Nixon rally was both, in his words "good" and "
"great," we can onlv conclude that more of that kind of activity was
actually promoted by the Nixon campaign itself.
4603
But Mr. Chairman, Mr. Haldeman did more. He attempted, on
more than one occasion — according to memorandums in evidence
here — ^to "leak" to favored newsmen the story that the McGovern
campaign was financing these activities — this violence — and that it
was itself financed by sinister foreign sources. Now when he made
those statements, Mr. Haldeman knew them to be false — but they are
widely believed nevertheless.
"\^niat I am trying to express here is that this kind of activity, and
all of the illegal and unethical activity we have heard described here,
is not typical of American politics at all. None of it was done in the
Democratic campaign of 1972. In the campaign with which I am
most familiar — that of Senator McGovern's — I can state categori-
cally that it was wholly free of each and all of the dirty tricks, the
crimes, the deceits and the coverups the Nation has now learned
were committed in behalf of his opponent.
Furthermore, I am prepared to state, based on my own knowledge
as well as extensive recent research, that it was also not "politics as
usual" in the other Democratic campaigns of 1972 — such as those
of Senator Humphrey, Senator Muskie, Senator Jackson and Mayor
Lindsay — and that this kind of politics has not been present in other
Democratic or Kepublican presidential campaigns. This kind of activ-
ity may well be "politics as usual" for Nixon campaigns, but not for
any other Democratic or Republican presidential campaign of which
I have any knowledge. And I believe it to be the gravest disservice
to the Republic to suggest that it is.
As to the effect on the 1972 campaign of the so-called "dirty tricks"
they would appear to have been successful. The purpose of it all — the
slimy letters, the forged press releases, the fake leaflets — seems to
have been not to influence the result of any single primary election, but
to create within the Democratic Party such a strong sense of resent-
ment among the candidates and their followers as to make unity of the
party impossible once a nominee was selected. At that, the effort seems
to have been most successful.
Workers in Senator Muskie's campaign have told me that they
believed the "dirty tricks" played on Senator Muskie in New Hamp-
shire to have been the work of the McGovern campaign. Certainly
there must have been those Humphrey and Jackson partisans who,
seeing the filthy letter about their candidates in Florida, forged so as
to appear to be from the Muskie campaign, must have turned their
anger on the Senator f roui Maine.
This was, I believe, particularly true in the later stages of the
primary campaign. Deliberately false statements about Senator Mc-
Govern's position on such matters as the legalization of marihuana,
amnesty, abortion, and even the legalization of prostitution were put
out in Ohio. NebrasKa. and California, and they were made to seem
the work of the campaigns — or even the statements of the candidates
themselves — of Senators Jackson and Humnhrey. In California, leaf-
lets deliberately distorting the record and maligning the character of
Senators Humphrey and McGovern were issued in the name of the
other, rival candidate. Thus both Senator McGovern and Senator
Humphr-ey were led to believe that the other was involved in a vicious
campaign of distortion and vilification, and any reuniting of fac-
tions— normally the course in a Democratic campaign after the pri-
maries— became far more difficult. I think it is a reasonable question
4604
whether Senator Humphrey would have lent himself to the so-called
California Challenoe in June and July of 1972 had he not become
convinced — because of the Nixon campaio:n's planned sabotage — that
Senator McGovern's cainpaio-n had attacked him unfairly in May.
We know that an insultino; telephone call was placed to AFL-CIO
President George Meany in June by someone masquerading as the
McGovern campaign manager, Gary Hart. How much of Mr. Meany's
hostility to Senator ^NIcGovern's campaign can be attributed to this
or other such incidents is difficult to measure. So. for that matter, is
the impact of numerous similar fake telephone calls to local union
and party officials during the fall camnaign, all of an insulting nature
and all from i)eople purporting to be McGovern campaign officials.
In short, what was created by the sabotage effort was an unparalleled
atmosphere of rancor and discord within the Democratic Party. And,
as Mr. Segretti perha]:)S unwittingly revealed before this committee,
that was the aim — and the only aim — of the campaign of illegal and
unethical acts which he largely executed, but which had been carefully
conceived by the various assistants, counsels, special assistants and
special comisels to the President of the United States.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Mankiewicz, for the record, and the committee's
purpose, would you briefly state your professional background leading
up to your career in political activities?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I have an undergraduate degree from the Uni-
versity of California at Los Angeles in the class of 1947, along with
Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman [laughter], the class the stars fell
on. I have a degree in journalism from the Columbia University
School of Journalism, and a law degree from the University of Cali-
fornia at Berkeley.
I practiced law in Los Angeles from 1955 through 1961, and in
1961 I went in the Peace Corps. I was the comitry director in Peru
for 2 years and the Latin Ameiican regional director for 2 years. From
1966 to the middle of 1968, I was press secretai-y to Senator Robert
Kennedy. I worked briefly at the Democratic convention in 1968 in
behalf of Senator McGovern. Thereafter I was, in collaboration with
Tom Braden, a syndicated columnist and telcA^ision commentator until
1971. and in May of 1971 I joined Senator ]\rcGovern's campaign
through the election of 1972.
My political activity began, I suppose, in California. In 1950 I was
a candidate for the State legislature. Thereafter I was elected to and
became active in the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Com-
mittee and Avas active in a variety of ways as volunteer in a number of ;
Presidential and statewide campaigns in California. But my sort of
official political activity consisted of service in the campaign of Sen-
ator Kennedy in 1968, briefly of Senator ^McGovern's in 1968, and as
the political director of Senator McGovern's campaign in 1971 and
1972.
Mr. Dash. Could you state briefly what vour function was in that
last role vou plaved during the Presidential campaign of 1972 for
Senator McGovern ?
Mr. Maxkieavicz. No.
Mr. Dash. You can't say it briefly ?
Mr. Maxkiewicz. I cannot say it briefly.
Mr. Dash. Just give us a brief outline. ^.
Mr. Maxkiewicz. In general x\
I
4605
Mr. Dash. I know you worked very hard, Mr. Mankiewicz.
Mr. Maxkiewicz. As I think Mr, Stearns indicated this morning,
the table of organization was not as liard and fast as perhaps people
believe in a Presidential campaign. In general, I was the inside man
of the McGovern campaign through the convention. I was involved in
financing, raising funds, to some extent checking on expenditures,
media, press, a variety of things in the national headquarters until
the convention, and from the convention on I traveled with Senator
IMcGovern's traveling pai'ty and was gone probably 5 or 6 days a week.
Those in general, were my responsibilities.
Mr. Dash. Perhaps, as I just continue with some of the other ques-
tions, you may be able to indicate your response with regard to a par-
ticular function, which may further elaborate on what you were doing
during the campaign.
What I would like to do, Mr. Buchanan, is to get your reaction to
certain evidence that is already before the committee. [Laug-hter.]
Mr. Mankiew^icz. The laughter is because you called me Mr. Bu-
chanan, I think.
Mr. Dash. I am sorry, but the buzzers sometimes interrupt the
thinking processes.
As a matter of fact, the slip was perhaps because I am going to be
referring some Buchanan memos to you. Did you, bj^ the way, hear
the testimony of j\Ir. Buchanan ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. Yes. I did.
Mr. Dash. What I would like to have you do, Mr. Mankiewicz, is to
react to some of the memorandums, not specifically ]\Ir. Buchanan's
memorandums but some of the exhibits that we have had before this
committee, primarily produced when ]Mr. Segretti testified. But by
way of introduction, we haA'e had, through Mr. Buchanan's testimony,
memorandums that were presented in the record, what, in effect, was
tlie grand strategy of the Republican Party in the campaign of 1972.
I want to make it very clear that the strategies as presented in the
Buchanan memorandums are not intended to be presented at this
time nor were they intended to be presented earlier when INIr. Bu-
chanan was a witness for the purpose of indicating any wrongdoing
or perhaps unethical or improper conduct, but perhaps to demonstrate
political strategy that was, in fact, set down from the memorandums,
and was later implemented by certain agents such as Segretti and the
agents who worked for him.
Now, in a memorandum which was dated March 24. 1971,* which is
a part of this record, addressed to the President from Mr. Buchanan,
entitled "The Muskie Watch," it is made clear by Mr. Buchanan that
the effort of the campaign should be to identify the front runner,
which was Senator Muskie, and to use the resources of the Republican
Party to affect his chances in the primary in such a way as to have him
not come out as the Democratic candidate. One of the strategies sug-
gested by Mr. Buchanan was, on page 3 of that memorandum, that the
attack siiould come not from the right but between the center and the
left of the Democratic Party : it should focus on those issues that divide
Democrats, not those that unite Republicans. It should exacerbate and
elevate those issues on which Democrats are divided, forcing Muskie
to either straddle or come down on one side or the other.
•See exhibit No. 170, Book 10, p. 4146.
4606
Then, a number of those issues are later identified on page 4 — a spe-
cial reference, by the way, to Mr. Muskie's personality as an individual
who perhaps cannot react under pressure, and the racial issue, his
stand on abortion, and some others.
Then further on, in a memorandum that was prepared by Mr.
Buchanan and identified by him for the record, addressed to the Attor-
ney General and Mr. Halcleman entitled "Dividing the Democrats,''*
Mr. Buchanan set forth some strategies, during the primaries, of what
acts should be followed or take place in order to divide the Democrats,
and a number of things such as supporting sort of liberal or leftwing
positions of the Democrats rather than rightwing positions.
Then, on page 5 of that memorandum is a recommendation that top-
level consideration should be given to ways and means to promote,
assist, and fund the fourth party candidacy of the left Democrats and
of the black Democrats. [Reading :]
There is nothing tliat can so advance tlie president's chances for reelection,
not a trip to China and not a 4i/^-percent unemployment rate, as a realistic black
campaign.
Black complaints : As we did with Muskie, we should continue to champion the
cause of the blacks within the Democratic Party, elevate their complaints as
being taken for granted.
Finally, another memorandum that I want to refer to is a memoran-
dum of April 12, 1972, from ]Mr. Buchanan to John Mitchell and
Haldeman** which states in its opening paragraph:
Our primary objective, to prevent Senator Muskie from sweeping the early
primaries, locking up the convention in April, and uniting the Democratic Party
behind him for the fall, has been achieved, and the likelihood, great 3 months
ago, that the Democratic convention could become a dignified coronation cere-
mony for a central candidate who would lead a united party into the election is
now remote.
My reference in that memorandum, Mr. Mankiewicz, to Senator Mc-
Govern's candidacy — on page 8 of that memorandum : "Our next goal
is the caption : 'What we need now is a decision on whom we want to
run against. We believe that INIcGovern is our candidate for dozens of
reasons,' *' as set forth in his memorandum.
He closes that memorandum by saying :
McGovern has a long shot at the nomination, a very long shot, but if he wins,
we win. Let us let him have his run at the nomination and assist him in every
way we can. Today he gets .5 percent of the Democratic vote nationally and R.N.
swamps liim in the polls and people do not yet know what a wild man he is.
McGovern is the one.
Now, that was Mr, Buchanan. He identified these memorandums,
and generally that this was various political strategy recommended
by him. He did not indicate that he himself had any operational role
but was an idea man.
Before the committee, we have had testimony from Mr. Donald
Segretti.
Did you ever come across the name of Donald Segretti during the
1972 campaign, Mr. Mankiewicz ?
Ml-. Af.xxKiEwirz. Xot until T began to read about him in the Wash-
in<rton Post.
♦See exhibit No. 170. Book 10. p. 4197.
**See exhibit No. 183. Book 10. p. 4226.
4607
Mr. Dash. That was after the campaio;n, \Yas it not?
Mr. Maxkiewigz. I do not think so. I think it was
Mr. Dash. Xo. I am son-y ; October is tlie hrst time.
Mr. Mankiewicz. Yes.
jNIr. Dash. Did you ever come across the name of Donald Simmons
or any other Republican operative in the California campaign or the
Florida campaign?
Mr. Mankiewicz. No; but I believe our California headquarters
turned up a volunteer card that Mr. Segretti had signed during the
primary.
Mr. Dash. We have testimony from Mr, Segretti, and it is already
in tlie record that he was hired by Mr. Chaj^tin, the President's ap-
pointments secretary, to hire agents and go into a covert operation to
infilti-ate campaigns and to produce demonstrators, pickets, and a
number of other activities that would specifically, as a strategy —
in Donald Segretti's testimony before this committee — divide Demo-
cratic candidates4n the primary, and that his assignment was to go to
the A^arious important primary States and enlist the aid of those
agents in those States.
I think I have given you a copy of the exhibits which were part of
the record when Mr. Segretti testified and were entered in the record,
and you have them before you. If you would turn to your tab 2
[previously entered as committee exhibit Xo. 200 and appears in
"Rnnk 10, p. 4269] in that list of exhibits, Mr. Mankiewicz.
Mr. INIaxkiewicz. Yes.
Mr. Dash. You will see a memorandum which has already been
made a part of this record, which is a blind memorandum. It has
no name attached. But Mr. Segretti testified that he received this
mpuiorandum from Mr. Chapin, and that it reads:
From now on. we want to have at least one Muskie sign in among demonstra-
tors who are demonstrating against the President. It should be Muskie for
President in big letters and should be held in locations so that it is clearly visible.
At Muskie events or events by other Democratic hopefuls, there should be a sign
or two which goads them. For example, at a INIuskie rally, there should be a
large "Why not a black Vice President" or perhaps. "We prefer Humphrey." or
sometliing else that would goad him along. At Humphrey rallies, there would be
Muskie signs ; and at Kennedy rallies, there should be Muskie or Humphrey
signs ; and so on. These signs should be well placed in relationship to the press
areas so a picture is easy to get.
X"ow, Mr. Segretti has testified that he followed this advice. In any
of the primaries that you are aware of, did you see any of the evi-
dence that this particular reconnnendation actually was carried out?
Mr. Max'kiewicz. "Well, I think there were a number of demonstra-
tions of it. I think, Mr. Dash, that in reference to those Buchanan
memorandums, the point ought to be made that people who give
political advice, particularly over a period of years, as Mr. Buchanan
did to the President and as I have done on at least one occasion, and per-
haps two — really two — there is a tendency as events develop to make
them self-confirming and to point out that what has happened is not
only what you predicted but what you brought to pass. I have a feeling
that some of the claims in the Buchanan memorandums are somewhat
excessive, and that Mr. Buchanan, being a political realist, would prob-
ably concur that it does very little to send a memorandum to your prin-
cipal, saying: "Everything I told you back in September has turned
out to be wrong." It provides a better flow to put it the other way.
4608
I mention that because on April 11, when ]Mr. Buchanan was say-
ing, "Our objective to weaken Senator INIuskie," or whatever it was
that you have just read, "has now been accomplished." There is a sug-
gestion there that he had accomplished it. I have a feeling that it was
accomplished by other forces, and indeed. Mr. Buchanan so testified.
It is also significant that, I think, at the time that he was saying,
"We must now give Senator INIcGovern a run at the nomination on the
11th of April," Senator McGovern was indeed the leading candidate
and that it was also about that time, as I recall — perhaps a situation
where the right hand didn't know what the left was doing — that Mr.
Hunt was transferring an honor student from Brigham Young from
his spying at the ]Muskie campaign, into performing the same func-
tion at the ]\IcGovern campaign.
Bvit all through the primaries, we saw this kind of activity that is
related in the Chapin memorandum, beginning early in the New
Hampshire campaign.
Mr. Dash. Well, during the campaign and all through the primaries,
did it ever occur to you or Senator McGovern in any discussions with
him or in any discussions that you had with the professional staffs of
any of the Democratic candidates, that there was working in the pri-
maries a Eepublican agent operative to do undercover work of this
kind ?
IVIr. INIankiewicz. No, it did not. As a matter of fact, I think we
all drew the reasonable conclusion — I know that in New Hampshire,
for example, there were a couple of things done to Senator ]Muskie. I
have since discovered that the Muskie campaign people believed that
the McGoA^ern campaign people had done those things. There was
every reason to believe that ; it was a two-man race.
In California, for example, when some of the more reprehensible
things would appear, I would occasionally talk to the Humphrey cam-
paign manager there and tell him that we had not done those things,
and vice versa. But I don't think either of us believed the other, be-
cause there was no i-eason to.
Mr. Dash. There was not only no reason to believe that it was, per-
haps, not you, but that the opposition — meaning the opposition party —
who, in fact, was doing it.
Mr. Maxkiewicz. I think, ]Mr. Dash, it goes to the point I made
originally. In California, for example, if a document ap))ears as it did,
ostensibly from a group called Democi'ats for a Peace Candidate and
it vilifies Senator Hiunphrey, distorts his positions and makes him
appear ludicrous and indeed the author of every atrocity in Vietnam,
ending with My Lai, Senator Humphrey's people are going to believe
that that is a product of his opposition. His opposition was not Mr.
Nixon at that point but Senator ]\IcGovern. So the Humphrey people
believed we did that and it was reasonable to believe that.
Mr. Dash. You covered your statement bv saying: "This is not poli-
tics as usual." I think it would be helpful in" the record before this
committee to find out Avhether this is true or not. You have also, by the
way. engaged in i-esearch.
The testimony before us is that an astute politician such as, say,
Senator Humphrey, who has had quite a bit of experience in political
campaigns should have been aware of the fact that this is the way
things are done and rather than look to blame one of his oi:)ponents in
4609
the primary, which was a fellow Democrat — should have known that
perha])s there was an agent from the opposition party at work.
Now, is this true or not ?
Mr. ^Iaxkiewicz. That is precisely the point I am trying to make,
that if this were indeed politics as usual, if men as experienced in
American politics as Senator Humphrey and Senator McGovern be-
lieved that this Avas the kind of thing that went on all the time, then
it might have occurred to them that perhaps the Xixon forces were
doing these things. But they didn't believe that. It is not customary
in American politics.
If you see a vile leaflet that comes out, the assumption is that it
comes from your opponent, if anyone, but certainly not from some
distant campaign, particularly if it is the President of the United
States masquerading as your opponent.
Now, it is true that Senator Humphrey and Senator McGovern
both were at least students of, if they had not had experience Avith,
past Nixon campaigns. It may have been that they should have been
more alert. But they were not.
The point I am making is, it is not politics as usual. The ordinary
assumption when a piece of literature like that comes out is not to
assume that it is anything but what it appears to be.
Mr. Dash. You have also indicated, I think, in your statement and
in your information that you have given to the committee concern-
ing your background and the activity you are now engaged in — I
understand you are engaged in research and a book involving Presi-
dential campaigns. Have you found in your research, in addition
to your activities in political campaigns, any tradition of this kind
of activity ?
Mr. ]Maxkiewicz. I have talked to people Avho were active in Re-
publican and Democratic Presidential campaigns since the fifties and
all of them have told me that they find astonishing and dangerous the
notion that somehow, this is done in all campaigns. People like Cliff
White, for example, who managed the Golclwater campaign in 1964.
I spoke to James Hagerty, who was one of the leaders in the Eisen-
hoAver campaigns in 1952 and 1956 ; Larry O'Brien and others Avho Avere
in the Democratic campaigns in the sixties, and they all say the same
thing. And the expei'ience of others is the same, that this espionage,
this deception, this putting out literature claiming to be in support of
one candidate Avhen in fact it is financed by another, is unprecedented.
Mr. Dash. Why don't Ave take a look at one particular example,
Avhich I think you liaA^e referred to in your statement, Avhich Avas a
particularly scurrilous piece of literature. It is tab 10 [previously
entered as connnittee exhibit No. 206 and appears in Book 10, p. 4280]
of the exhibits there that are in the record and Mr. Segretti testified
before this committee and identified this pai-ficular item, Avhich is a
letter that is typed on "Citizens for Muskie'' stationery, Avhich Mr.
Segretti said that he had renrinted or rephotographed. It is pur-
portedly a message from the Citizens for Muskie or from the Muskie
campaign, to "felloAv Democrats." This is a letter Avhich I will not
read here, as I did not read Avhen Mr. Segretti Avas here, out of
respect for both Senators Humphrey and Jackson, and also Senator
Muskie. But this is the letter AAdiich falsely accused Senators Jackson
and Humphrey of serious sexual misconduct and other acts which
would be quite shocking to the felloAv Democrats Avho received it.
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 16
4610
i\Ir. Seoretti said that lie not only photographed and made up the
stationery from copies he had, but actually made up the letter, made
up the names, and it was an entirely false statement; that none of
the accusations ^vere true and that not a large number were distributed ;
but he saw to it that the candidates and their start's got it.
Xow, you have that before you. A^^ere you aware, by the way, of this
particular "(^itizens for Muskie" letter that circulated in Florida?
Mr. Maxkiewkz. Yes, I was.
Mr. Dash. Can you give us a brief description of the impact of that
letter in the Florida prinuiry among the candidates, as you knew it as
a woik'er in that election ?
Mr. Mankikwicz. Well, I think there were two reactions to it. T
think there may have been some people who thought that since it said
Citizens for jNIuskie, it had come from the official Muskie organization.
But I doubt that there were very many people who thought that,
because the letter is so vile that someone would have had to be rather
ignoiant of Senator Muskie's record and the standing of the people
who worked for him to assume that. I think the general feeling was that
some low-level Muskie operative, perhaps, had in an unauthorized way
taken some of his own campaign stationery and made up this thing.
But I think there were also others who probably thought that since
this was a letter which simultaneously defamed Senator Jackson,
Senator Hum]ihrey, and Senator Muskie for having circulated it, that
perhaps the letter was prepared by still a fourth candidate who Vvould
benefit from these people being smeared, namely. Senator McGovern.
Mr. Dash. Did you in fact have that kind of accusation made against
you ?
Mr. Mankieavicz. Some of the ]oeople who worked for Senator
Muskie said that was their feeling at that time.
Mr. Dash. Do you think the letter was calculated to produce that
result ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I am not sure it was that sophisticated, but I
think the calculated result of this letter is that people would either
get mad at Senator Muskie or at Senator McGovern, and that in any
event
Mr. DAsrr. People did get mad, did they not?
Mr. Maxkiewicz. People would get mad, and it would create fric-
tion or rancor among the Democratic candidates. It would hardly
have been calculated to win votes. I understand they only circulated
20 or 30 of them, but they mailed them to the right people.
Afr. Dasit. That is correct, and this followed, as I have indicated,
the testimony that we had from Mr. Segretti that his purpose was to
engage in this kind of activity to divide the candidates and to create
the bittei-ness. As a matter of fact, he said it was the usual tradition
for the Democrats to fight in the i)rimaries but rally behind the
candidate that comes out of the convention,
Mr. Maxkiewicz. That is correct.
Mr. Dash. And his job with his agents was to soav such bitterness
that whoever came out of the convention would not be able to get the
others to rally around him.
If you will look at tab (> (previouslv entei-ed as committee exhibit
No. 158 and a|)pears in Book 10, p. 40551, this is the leaflet which
has been introduced on at least two occasions before this committee
4611
and testified to on at least two occasions. It was a leaflet which lias at
the lower left-hand corner the label "Citizens for a Liberal Alterna-
tive." And the one that has the photograph of Senator Muskie smok-
ing a big cigar, and a slogan "Wake up Liberals ! Is This the Man
You Want in the Oval Office ?"
Mr. Mankiewicz. Yes.
Mr. Dash. And such statements as "Muskie added himself publicly
to the list of political opportunists in opposing abortion reform. What
kind of a man is Ed Muskie ? He is a wheeling-dealing, ward-heeling
politician, Ed ^Muskie would be no different from the Nixons, Agnews,
Mitcliells, Connallys we have now. He is the candidate of the Demo-
cratic right."
Mr. ]\Iankiewicz. I am very familiar with that leaflet.
Mr. Dash. Did you see this leaflet during the campaign?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I saw it for the first time in New Hampshire.
Mr. Dash. Were you aware at the time you saw that leaflet that it
was prepared, as has been testified before our hearing, by Mr. Ken
Khachigian, Mr. Buchanan's assistant; was edited by Mr. Buchanan
and actually was printed by the Committee for the Re-Election of the
President ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. No ; I was not aware of that.
Mr. Dash. And also it is the testimony before this committee by jSIr.
Porter that he paid approximately $100, I believe, to ]Mr. Roger Stone
on one occasion to go to New Hampshire to leave a leaflet, I believe
at Senator McGovern's headquarters.
Mr. Mankiewicz. That is right.
Mr. Dash. Mr, Stone has alreadv informed this committee in inter-
views with the staff' of the committee that this particular leaflet was
left at the McGovern headquarters.
Mr. Mankiewicz. I think it is an example, by the way, Mr. Dash,
that the White House was playing dirty tricks on Senator McGovern
as early as late February, even though Mr. Buchanan would place that
at a later date.
But this leaflet caused a lot of trouble because
Mr. Dash. Can you describe the kind of trouble it gave you ?
Mr. jMankiewicz. It was planted at the McGovern headquarters, I
think, as the testimony here showed, and then a copy of it was taken,
I believe, to the Manchester L'nion Leader, where the people at the
Jiewspaper were told they could find it at the McGovern headquarters.
The Muskie campaign people complained in this case to me about the
leaflet and I must say leaving it to my impression, with a rather sink-
ing feeling, that it had been prepared by Stewart Mott.
Now, Mr. Mott at that time was not a McGovern supporter, but he
was a Muskie opponent. Mr. Mott had taken on for himself the job of
seehig tliat Senator Muskie did not win the nomination. He did not
particuhirly care who else won it; he was making small contributions
at the time to Senator McGovern, Congresswoman Chisholm, Senator
McCarthy, and, I believe, Mayor Lindsay ; and lie had set uj) a number
of committees and had sort of taken on singlehandedly the job, we
thought, of attacking Senator Muskie. And this leaflet seemed to me
to have his stamp on it.
Mr. Dash. Well, the leaflet which would have a committee "Citizens
for a Liberal Alternative" attackinc; Senator Muskie would be inter-
preted to be supported by what candidate really ?
4612
Mr. M.vNKiEwicz. Well, at that time in Xew Hampshire certainly,
only by Senator McGovern. He was the only candidate who could be
described, I think in New Hampshire, as a libei-al alternative to Sen-
ator McGovern or at least would have been by Stewart Mott.
Mr. Dash. Senator Muskie.
Mr. Mankiewicz. Senator Muskie. But Mr. Mott told me he did
not put out the leaflet, but I was convinced at that time and later that
the Muskie campaign believed that Senator McGovern was indeed
responsible for this leaflet.
Mr. Dash. Did you have any occasion to see that leaflet anywhere
else in the country ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I think we saw it also in Wisconsin, and perhaps in
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Segretti had testified
Mr. Mankiewicz. Almost all of the primaries up to the time that
Senator INIuskie withdrew from the race.
Mr. Dash. The record will show Mr. Segretti has testified he
received between 500 and 1,000 and spread them all over the primary
States, including Galifornia, as well.
If you will also look at tab 13 [previously entered as committee
exhibit Xo. 209 and appears in Book 10, p. 4284], having referred
to Mr. Mott, Mr. Segretti testified before this committee on this partic-
ular exhibit, which was entered in the record, that he took this ad
that Mr. ]Mott did place in various newspapers, the ad that attacks
Senator Muskie, with tlie heading ''Disgusting: The Secret Money in
Presidential Politics," and calls on Senator Muskie to make an ac-
counting for the money, and he calls it the "Committee for Honesty
in Politics." It is identified as Stewart E. Mott, chairman.
Mr. Mankiewicz. Yes.
Mr. Dash. But you will notice at the bottom there is an additional
two paragraphs or two sentences that Mr. Segretti said he added to
this ad, and they are: "Now he says he will disclose the fat cats
behind him," referring to Muskie. "After he has lost badly in Florida
and cried in New Hampshire, why is he waiting for full disclosure?
Is it to fix up his books?" And then the last two sentences: "The com-
mittee will look foi- your names as part of INIuskie's fat cats. They had
better be there." The reference to that last couple of sentences is that
this particular pamphlet, according to Mr. Sea:retti"s testimonv, was
handed out in Los Angeles at a Muskie fundraising dinner and given
to tlic ])eople attending that so they would see at the bottom "That
the conunittee will look for your names as part of Muskie's fat cats
and thev had better bo there." Were you aAvare of this pamphlet?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I was aware of the basic pamphlet l)ut not of the
message at the bottom, or that, if it aimed directly at contributors
of a dinner, I dare sav it might have inliibited their contribution.
Mr. Dash. Since ]\Ir. Mott had boon identified Avith supporting ]\rr.
McGovern, if this was being handed out by Mr. Segretti. a Republican
agent uudei'Mr. rhapin"ssui)ervision, tlic people attendinji that dinner
would have reason to believe what candidate was distributing it.
Mr. Mankiewicz. Well, they cei'taiidv would have had reason, not
only the people attendino- tlic dinner but Senator Muskie's cami^aign
people would have additional reason to l)olie\-e Senator McGovern
4613
was campaigning in an nnfair manner against Senator Muskie and
they did so believe.
Mr. Dash. I think you may be aware — if you will turn to tab 23.
Mr. Mankiewicz. I 'might point out, Mr. Dash, that this Committee
for Honesty in Politics was Mr. Mott's sole creation and had no connec-
tion at any time with tlie McGovern campaign. Indeed, periodically
I would try to dissuade Mr. Mott from putting these ads in the news-
papers because I felt it was of no help to the position tliat he espoused.
Mr. Dash. Turn to tab 23 [previously entered as committee exhibit
No. 219 and appears in Book 10, p. 4299]. You will note anoth^"
leaflet which bears a similarity on the leaflet we have just talked about.
Mr. Mankiewicz. What is the tab ?
Mr. Dash. Tab 23.
M^T. Mankiewicz. Tab 23, yes.
Mr. Dash. This one, instead of being Muskie and instead of being
"Citizens for a Liberal Alternative,'' is purportedly a committee called
"Democrats Against Bossism, T. Wilson, chairman." Mr. Segretti has
testified that he was that committee. He made it up ; and this one shows
a picture of Senator Humphrey holding a big fish, and it shows Hum-
phrey at the top with the slogan, "A Fishy Smell for the White
House?" and similar anti-Humphrey statements charging him with
bossism, linking him to bad union activities, and things of that nature.
Did you ever come across that leaflet ?
Mr. Mankiew^icz. Yes; I came across that in California. California
was a two-man race. This was one of the leaflets, I tliink, that enraged
Senator HumjDhrey and his partisans because they believed it came
from the McGovern camp.
There was another leaflet very similar to this in which that fish
on the cover was present but the face of Senator Humphrey had been
cropped and put on to the fish, and the line underneath, instead of
saying "A Fishy Smell for the White House" said "There is Something
Ffshy About Senator Humphrey," and instead of being from the
"Committee Against Bossism, T. Wilson, chairman," it was called the
"Democrats for a Peace Candidate, T. Wilson, chairman." Otherwise
the copy was the same.
Mr. Dash. That particular committee. Democrats for a Peace Candi-
date, has already been testified to by Mr. Segretti as also being Mr.
Segretti.
Mr. Mankiewicz. Right ; and notice a bumper sticker here as tab
Mr. Dash. Tab 20.
Mr. M.\NKiEwicz. Tab 20 [previously entered as committee exhibit
No. 216 and appears in Book 10, p. 4295], which says of Humphrey,
"He Started the War, Don't Give Him Another Chance,'' and that
is also from the Democrats for a Peace Candidate, which turned out
to be Mr. Segretti.
Mr. Dash. Yes; he testified he prepared the bumper sticker and he
was that committee.
Mr. IVfANKiE^vicz. Those things were all believed by the Humi)hrey
people, during the California primary, to be the work of the McGovern
cami^aign and none of our denials woidd dissuade them from that,
Mr. Dash. How serious was the rift or bitterness that developed
from these kinds of papere ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I believe it was very serious. There were counter-
parts—similar-type leaflets about Senator McGovern from equally
4614
fictitious committees which we believed to be the product of the
Humphrey cauipaign and we didn't believe their denials. I had a num-
ber of close friends, political associates, who were working in the Hum-
phrey campaign. Those friendships were severely strained in that
campaijxn and perhaps have not been totally restored. I tliink Senator
Humphrey and Senator McGovern themselves, who had been close
friends prior to that campaijjn, had a considerable strain placed on
their relationship and. as I said in my prepared statement, I have a
feelino- it was this kind of thiiiir that made Senator Hmnphrey more
willin<>-to support the so-called California challenoe immediately after
the priuiary. We were no lon<>er oi)ponents: we had become enemies,
and I think lai'o;ely as a result of this kind of activity.
Mr. Dash. Do you also have a view as to this kind of activity which
also attacks Senator Muskie or how it affected Senator Muskie's rela-
tionship with Senator McGovem ?
Mr. Maxkieavicz. I think the thing:s done here to Senator Muskie
had a similar effect. In New Hampshire, for example, late-ni^ht phone
calls were made from people, imitating what they believed to be the
accent of black Americans, claimino; to be representatives of the Har-
lem Committee for Muskie. These calls came around midni<rlit and
were made to people in New Hampshire in areas where people ^o to
bed considerably earlier than they do in NeAv York.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Mankiewicz, we haven't had testimony of that par-
ticular incident. Do you have any particular evidence as to who the
source or what the source of that was?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I have no idea what the source was, but I know
it was not the McGovern campaifrn, just as I know the INIcGovern
campaign Avas not the source of the famous Canuck letter. I don't
knoAv Avho the source was, but I think we have a pattern of activity
here now which would at least cause the burden of proof to shift and
require some kind of proof that it was not the work of the same people
who put out this kind of material.
Mr. Dash. What evidence did you have that would give you some
reason to believe there was anvthing other than bitterness or a separa-
tion of friendship concerning Senator Muskie's relationship Avith Sen-
ator McGovern. especially after the California primary ?
Mr. ]\fANKiEA\''icz. I haA'e been told that by people Avho AA'ere in
Senator Muskie's campaign, that they believed Senator McGovern Avas
the source of the dirty tricks against Senator Muskie, not oidy in Ncav
Hampshire but in other primary States as well.
I have no Avay to probe hoAv deeph' these thinsfs affected his dwision,
but T knoAv that shortly after the California primary. Senator Muskie
spoke here at the National Press Club and Avas Avidely belieA-ed, in-
cluding by his campaign manager as late as midnight the night before,
to be about to endorse Senator ^^cGoA•ern. He did not. T tliink the
course of the 1972 campaian Avould liave been vastlv different if he
had: as T say, I don't knoAv how much it contributed, but I certainly
think that a man AA^ho had spent the last 4 months believino: that Sen-
ator McGovern Avas out to insult him, to make this kind of dirt v trick,
to make him seem the kind of person that he Avas not, Avould certainly
be less Avilling to make that endorsement. T think it entered into that
decision, iust like it entered into Senator Humphrey's decision to join
in the California challenge.
4615
I
Mr. Dash. On a number of occasions, Mr. Mankiewicz, specifically
in the testimony of Mr, Hakleman and testimony of Mr. Buchanan
and some other witnesses, we have had the name "Dick Tuck" pre-
sented to the committee, and references to Dick Tuck that what was
being done here and the kind of activities that were being sponsored
against the Democratic candidates was a Dick Tuck-type activity.
Do you know Dick Tuck ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I know him very w^ell.
Mr. Dash. How do you know him ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I met him, I guess, in the 1960 campaign in Cal-
ifornia. We worked together. I guess he worked for me most of the
time in the 1968 Robert Kennedy campaign, and he worked in the
1972 campaign briefly. I was responsible for his being hired in the
1972 campaign, and in the interim I see him from time to time, and I
would say we are friends as well as associates.
Mr. Dash. Our resolution does not permit us to really go into earlier
campaigns other than the 1972 campaign, but knowing what Dick
Tuck did during any campaign, including the 1972 campaign, if he
was active, are the things that I have shown you in these exhibits which
Mr. Segretti has identified as his handiwork, would you say or char-
acterize these things as Dick Tuck-type activities ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. No, I would not ; not remotely.
Mr. Dash. What would the difference be? What characteristic of
these activities would not be characteristic of Dick Tuck's activities ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. Well, in the first place, a total lack of humor. In
the second place, these are serious, almost vicious allegations with
respect to other candidates which Mr. Tuck has never gone into at
all. Mr. Tuck's function really in a campaign is to amuse — to restore,
sometimes, a needed sense of humor to a campaign.
Mr. Dash. Did he engage in deception ?
Mr. INIankiewicz. No ; he never engaged in deception. On the con-
trary, no one was quicker to claim credit for the things he did than
Dick Tuck. That was an important pait of the activity. He never de-
ceived. It was always clear who was doing things. He was always
around, very visible, never Avent under another name. There was a
student down in New Hampshire which I thought Dick Tuck had done
for us, he says he did not, but it seems to me a perfect example of
a Dick Tuck-type activity, although somewhat a little weaker, per-
haps, than some of the things he did, gentler maybe, but then it was
New" Hampshire.
Mr. Dash. AMiat was that ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. In New Hampshire when any candidate files for
the Presidential primary, the Governor sponsors a sort of coffee-and-
cake reception in the statehouse after the candidate has filed his papers,
and when Senator Muskie went up there in January 1972 they had this
reception, and as the guests finished their coffee, they all discovered
that underneath the coffee as they turned up their cups, pasted on the
bottom looking up at you, was a replica of a McGovern campaign
button. Now. tliat doesn't get into the league of some of the things we
have been talking about here. But it is in my view toward the bottom
range of a Dick Tuck-type operation, and as a matter of fact, I called
Dick that afternoon to congratulate him on it, and he said no, he hadn't
done it, but I assume it was done by a disciple.
4616
Mr. Dash. Was Dick Tuck, in fact, hired by the McGovern campaign
in 1972?
Mr. Mankiewicz, He was hired in late 1971, yes; and remained with
the campaign, I think, until around midspring of 1972.
Mr. Dash. Was there a particular activity he recommended which
you didn't approve ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. He did some things for us. I know it damages his
reputation to say so, but Tuck is a good workman in, a political cam-
paign on projects that are considered straight. He is a good research
man and he is a good press man. He did some research for us in New
York in the 1972 campaign, compiling some material from newspapers
and other sources on Mayor Lindsay. He did come up with a Dick
Tuck-type trick in 1 972 and we weren't able to do it because we didn't
have the money and I couldn't convince other people in the campaign
that it had high enough priority.
Sometime in the summer of 1972 President Nixon went to John
Connally's i-anch to meet with a number of Republican contributors at
a big l)arbecue. They all flew in, in private airplanes, to the airstrip
tliere and Tuck proposed to put two trucks at the airstrip, one a Brinks
truck, and tlie other a simple wliite paneled truck with the Spanish
words for Mexican laundry painted on the side. [Laughter.]
He even went so far as to check with me what the precise language
would be, but it was going to cost $500 or $600 and we couldn't spare
the money. It was a pity. I thought it would have livened up the
campaign [laughter] and perhaps pointed out a moral or twQ.
Mv. Dash. Now. Mr. ISIclNIinoway has testified fairly recently to his
activities as an infiltrator in A'arious campaigns — Senator Muskie's
campaign in Wisconsin, Senatoi- Humphrey's campaign in Penn-
svlvania. Senator McGovern's campaign in California, Senator INIc-
Govern's campaign in the District of Columbia, and Senator Mc-
Govern's headquarters in the Democratic Convention at the Doral
Hotel in Miami. He indicated that he had a security post and that he
was very close to a numbei- of the top McGovern workers; in fact, ac-
tuallv sat in with Senator McGoveni in n suite on the evening of the
California delegate vote and sat and watched TV with him.
Did you come across or meet Michael MclNIinoway ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I have no recollection of ever meeting him. I saw
him on television last night and he did not seem familiar to me in any
way. I do not recall ever meeting him.
On the other hand, people in our campaign have told me that he
was used as a volunteer to sit at a desk on the 16th floor of the Hotel
Doral and clear people who were going from the 16th flooi- up to the
17th floor, which is where Senator McGovern Avas and where the Mc-
Govern campaign nerve center was. I am pi-epared to believe that he
was sitting there, in which case I probably saw him four or five times
a day, but I do not remember ever having a conversation with him
beyond perhaps an exchange of pleasantries as I passed by.
Ml'. Dash. There are a number of buttons which Mr. McMinoway
has testified to that campaign staff membere had and each was of suc-
cinct importance in gaining access to certain areas in the headquarters.
He said he had all three buttons. Actually, was there a particular
button that oiily a few ])eople had ?
INIr. Mankiewicz. There was a special button that the Secret Serv-
ice issued to j^erhaps seven or eight staif people in each campaign. It
4617
was red before the convention and white afterward and said "1972
Staff.'' T know he did not have one of those.
Mr. Dasti. How many buttons all together, staff buttons?
Mr. Maxkiewicz. I have no idea. There must have been all kinds of
other buttons.
Mr. Dash. Pie said he had all kinds of buttons.
]Mr. Maxkiewicz. I will tell you, Mr. Dash, we were not very secu-
rity conscious at the Doral beyond havinfj a control point to know who
was coming up to the I7th flooi". Beyond that, people could roam
around and did.
Mr. Dash. For a person to receive one of the staff buttons that gave
him access to security areas, what would be the procedure on the staff
before such a person would be given that staff' button ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. Well, we had a man named Anthony Borash who
ran the security at the hotel for us and wlio probably took volunteers
to sit at the desk and probably do a few other things to maintain some
order. But actually, we did not care very much what went on below
the 16th floor. "We had that control point there, and I would assume he
would pass out the buttons.
Mr. Dash. Would he ])ass out the buttons to everybody or just in fact
to staff employees ?
Mr. Maxkiewicz. To people who were working for him. I presume
that button would have gotten him access to the 16th floor. But I am
quite sure he did not spend that Monday evening with Senator
McGovern.
Mr. Dash. Senator McGovern has already given Senator Montoya
a sworn affidavit, which was read into the record this morning, that
he has never seen Mr. McMinoway.
]Mr. IVIaxkteW'ICZ. He might have come into that room on occasion
to deliver a message or something like that, but beyond that, I find it
hard to believe
Mr. Dash. He also stated that when he was in Milwaukee, he went
into McGovern headquarters and observed jNIcGovern workers pre-
paring posters such as, "We want a leader, not a crybaby" and other
types of anti-Muskie posters and that they were preparing for an anti-
Muskie march and that he noticed there were McGovern workers who
had demonstrated against Senator Muskie. He also noticed that there
were IVIcGovern workers who tore off Senator Muskie signs in the
Milwaukee area and I think also in California.
Xow, I think prior to your appearing as a witness. I have given you
that information and you may have actually heard his testimony. Have
you made any effort to check to see whether- or not there is any corrob-
oration of that in the McGovern headquarters at Milwaukee?
]Mr. Maxkiewicz. I have. I talked to Gene Pokorney. who was direc-
tor of the McGovern campaign in Wisconsin, and, of course, neither he
nor I can say for sure what went on in every McGovern headquarter
in the State at any given time. He does say that the student coordinator
that Mr. McMinoway says he was working with was not in the Mil-
waukee headquarters. He spent his time in Madison and Eau Claire
and other places where there was a student population, but he says it
is possible that that sort of thing happened, although he doubts it
♦See exhibit 241. p. 4743.
4618
strongly. I find it very improbable and so does Pokorney, because at
that point, we did not feel we were running aijainst Senator Muskie.
All our polls and all our deleijate counts we had indicated that at that
point, it was a two-man race for the nomination, between Senator
McGovern and Senator Humphrey. We were afraid Senator Muskie
was goino; to withdraw and if he did, his votes, by and larc:e, would go
to Senator Humphrey and we were anxious to keep him in the race. I
think it most improbable that McGovern people would have done any-
thing of an anti-Muskie nature in Wisconsin.
In addition to which, part of what Rick Stearns testified to this
morning, our polling indicated that the strateg>^ Senator McGovern
had followed from the beginning in New Hampshire was correct,
which was that he should resolutely refrain — and so should his cam-
paign people — refrain from attacking any other candidate, that his
strength lay in the fact that he was perceived as a positive candidate
rather than a negative one.
Mr. Dash. Mr. McMinoway — T mean, Mr. Mankiewicz
Mr. Mankiewicz. I would rather be called Buchanan than
MclSIinoway.
Mr. Dash. I have been referring to a number of the operatives and
agents names over a period of months that we have been sitting.
Mr. Mankiewicz, in these montlis that have floated before us, actu-
ally in the last couple of weeks, we have had testimony about so-called
pranks or tricks, political espionage, from various witnesses, that run
the gamut from having certain persons at a rally or at a meeting, place
hard questions to the candidate, to using stinkbombs, to infiltrate, to
doing the kinds of things that I refer to in these exhibits that Mr.
Segretti testified that he was engaged in. I think it would be very
helpful to the committee if someone with your experience in a Presi-
dential campaign could aid us as we begin to look at this range of activ-
ity, and which unfortunately, we have heard is run-of-the-mill and
which you have denied is run-of-the-mill activity, if we can get your
recommendations. If we were to consider looking at campaign activity
for the purposes of legislation or recommending codes of ethics, even,
where you Avould draw lines in terms of permissible conduct and im-
permissible conduct ?
Mr. Maxkiewicz. I think it hinges on the question of deception, Mr.
Dash. I think almost everything is permissible if it is identified as to
its source; in other words, if a McGovern supporter wants to go to a
Muskie rally where there Avill be a question period and ask a hard
question of Senator Muskie, I see nothing objectionable about that.
If, on the other hand, he is secretly a Nixon supporter posing as, let us
say, a McGovern supporter or a Humphrey supporter, in order not
only to ask a question of the candidate but to embarrass the candidate
he is allegedly supporting, that is something else again. ;
I think the whole question goes to one of deception. I think prob- '
ably the most damaginji thinof in the political arena is if we come to
believe that a piece of literature identified as coming from one candi-
date, in fact does not come from him but comes from someplace else.
Then nothing will be believable. Then if a candidate makes a state-
ment on an issue, one will not be able to know whether indeed he made
that statement, stands behind it. supports it. When a piece of literature
comes out saying Muskie for President or so-and-so for Senator, one
4619
has to believe that that is indeed where it is coming from. If we can no
longer believe that, then I think the process has perhaps been irrep-
arably damaged. I would hoi)e that there could be legislation pro-
posed here which would outlaw that kind of deception.
Mr. Dash. Does it not go to the heart of it, Mr. Mankiewicz, -when
you point your finger at deception, such things as infiltration, decep-
tion such as a person representing himself as a person who is working
for that candidate when he is in fact a spy, paid for volunteering and
giving back information and these leaflets. If the free-election system
is to permit candidates to express their positions and present issues
to the American electorate, is there any room in American politics,
in the free society we call our American free society, for any political
party, whether it be the Democratic Party or the Republican Party,
to promote the kind of deceptive practices that manipulate votes
through misrepresentation ?
Mr. IMankiewicz. I not only believe there is no place for it, I believe
that there has not, until the 1972 campaign, the 1972 Nixon campaign,
been any place for it, that it existed. Xow we kncm- it can be done.
I must say I heard_Mr. Buckley testify a few days ago that he did
not think there was any crime involved in taking documents from
one candidate under the guise of working for him and being a mes-
senger, photographing them and turning them over to another
candidate.
Mr. Dash. Does this offend your sense of ethics?
Mr. IVLvNKiEWicz. It does. It not only offends my sense of ethics, I
find it hard to believe it is not illegal. If it is not, it should be. "When
a man goes to a man engaged in a Presidential campaign and claims
to be working for him and in secret is working for somebody else, that
ought to be illegal. When a statement is put out on Senator X's sta-
tionery and in fact it is a statement of Senator Y, or more likely
President Y, that ought to be illegal as well. The question goes to
sanctions,
Mr. Dash. The criminal sanction may not be during an election a
very effective one ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. That is right. I •\A-ould hope the committee might
turn its attention to the question of sanction in the electorial area.
Mr. Dash. Could you give us a suggestion of the kind of area ?
Mr. Maxkiew^icz. I have not given it a great deal of thought, but
it seems to me that if the penalty, for example, for this kind of illegal
" behavior were, to make an analogy in sports, if a fighter hits below
the belt, he loses the round and he can win the fight only by winning
a majority of the rounds. That is a serious penalty.
Mr. Dash. An analogy in the election would be what?
Mr. Mankiewicz. Maybe the candidate loses that State. Maybe he
is ineligible to be on the ballot. I do not know. I am just throwing
tliese out. I do not suggest for 1' minute that they are reasonable
solutions or even constitutional ones. But it seems to me if the penalty
went in that direction, rather than saying, j^ou have to pay a fine of
$100 or the candidate can sue you and 5 years later find that you are
judgmentproof and not collect anything, or it is a misdemeanor and
; you may have to pay a fine or be on probation or whatever it is, I do
not think that is enough. I think we have to look at different kinds of
I penalties, because we are dealing with a very fundamental kind of
\ activity.
4620
Mr. Dash. Mr. Mankiewicz, we did not, in asking you to come as a
witness, either give you the time or ask you to prepare specific recom-
mendations. But I think with your experience, with the research you
are presently doing, it would be very helpful to the committee if you
would think a little about these things.
Mr, Mankiewicz. I Avill be happy to.
Mr. Dash. And if you have some recommendations you would like
to submit to the committee, we would appreciate it very much. Tlie
kinds of recommendations ought to be workable and practical ones,
and not theoretical ones; and I think coming from a person who was
active in a campaign and was in the pit, I think j^erhaps we would be
able to find that a much more useful recommendation.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions at this time.
Senator MoNTOYA. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ]Mankiewicz, do I understand your opinion is that the Segretti
activities did not really influence that many votes, but it caused disrup-
tion in the opposing camps and caused disharmony and discord among
the various Democratic candidates ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. That is substantially correct, yes.
INIr. Thompson. "Was there not an inherent effort, say. in a primary
campaign among the Democratic candidates themselves to create a cer-
tain amount of disharmony among the various candidates opposing
that person ?
INIr. Mankiewicz. Not if I understand your question correctly, my
answer would be no.
]\Ir. Thompson. I will be right to the point. I came across something
that I would like to ask you about, because I am not sure of the import
of it myself.
Mr. Richard Dougherty — what position did he hold in the
campaign ?
ISIr. ]\Iankiewicz. He was traveling press secretary after the
convention.
^Ir. Thompson. Have you had a chance to read his book "Good-bye
Mr. Christian"?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I have read in it very briefly. I haven't had a
chance to read it all.
Mr. Thompson. I have not had an opiiortunity to read the entire
book, but I notice here on page GO, the bottom ]:)aragraph. T believe
this is in Novembei- or December of 1071 when this came about. He
says :
In the mail the next morning was a memo from Gary Hart addressed to Man-
kiewicz, Gralnick, and me. It said we should move the story in wliatever mys-
terious ways such stories are moved that the Muskie campaign is urjring- com-
mitted McGovern supporters to switch to Muskie to stoj) Huhert Humphrey.
Humphrey is being used as the villain to encourage liberals to rally around the
Muskie candidacy. We .should drive the wedge deeper, but use it against Muskie
in such a way as to increase Humphrey's displeasure with Muskie.
Do you recall that memoiandnm. which, according to him was sent
to you ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. T don't recall the memorandum, but T recall that
feeling and that discussion, yes.
Mr. Thompson. Could vou enlighten us as to what
Mr. Mankiewicz. "Well. I see a trreat deal of ditference there.
4621
Mr. Thompson. I am not trying to draw any comparison.
Mr. Mankiewicz. But if what you mean is to — I see that, Mr.
Tliompson, as the driving of an electoral wedge in Gary Hart's phrase,
rather than a personal one. I think what he was saying was that Sena-
: tor Muskie's people were at that time — it was really our Valley Forge
there — the end of December. Our supporters were melting away and
there hadn't been very many of them to begin with. What Senator
Muskie was doing, and rather effectively at that time, was suggesting
to people in the Democratic Party that if they didn't want Senator
Humphrey to be the nominee, then he was the alternative, that they
had better rally around him and not be dividing between him and
Senator McGovern. What Gary Hart was saying is let's try to combat
that by whatever the device was that he was talking about, by point-
ing out that
Mr. Thompson. Leaking the story, I assume.
Mr. Maxkiewicz. Well, leaking is a pejorative word there. He was
describing a fact and he was sayin,g we ought to get the press
j Mr. Thompson. Move in whatever mysterious ways such stories are
I moved.
Mr. Mankiewioz. Yes, get the press to write about it. Gary always
professed ignorance of the craft of a press secretary, which we were
i very zealous to guard, because the fact is there is no craft at all. But we
would have to maintain the proposition that there is. What he was
saying is : Let's get the proposition across somehow to the public that
we know that Muskie is trying to do this, when in fact, there was
still a contest going on and we should keep the division between the
I Humphrey supporters and Muskie supporters. But not over the ques-
tion of personality. Not over the question of whether one of them is
. guilty of some terrible sexual deviations, but only as to their positions
on the issues.
Mr, Thompson. I am not trying to relate this.
Mr. Mankiewicz. I understand.
Mr. Thompson. I think we have to draw an overall picture as to
' whether or not the falling out among the various candidates, if that
I is what it was, had to do with what Donald Segretti and some of his
i people did totally or whether it was in part due to the natural opera-
tions of a political campaign. And stories, whether they are true or
not, are designed to increase a candidate's displeasure with another
candidate.
Mr. Mankiewicz. It is unquestionably a mixed question. There are
all kinds of reasons that go into it, but I think the anger and the
rancor and the bitterness was far stronger this year than it has ever
been and I think it is at least in large part attributable to this kind
of campaign.
Mr. Thompson. If you will allow me, I will give a plug to your
new book, which I believe is coming out very soon, is it not?
Mr. Mankiewicz. Yes, it is.
Mr. Thompson. What is the name of that book i
Mr. Mankiewicz. It is called "Perfectly Clear ; Nixon From Whit-
tier to Watergate.''
Mr. Thompson. Did you discuss the matters concerning the signif-
icance of the sabotaging in the primary, the Segretti type activities in
your book ?
4622
Mr. Maxkiewicz. I go into it to some extent, yes.
Mr. Thompson. How did you analyze it there ? Substantially as you
did here ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. Substantially as I am today.
Mr. Thompson. Did you add any
Mr. Mankiewicz. No, the major emphasis that I placed there was on
this lar^jer question of. to what extent has this kind of activity taken
place in other campaigns.
]SIr. Thompson. And you analyzed the preA'ious campaigns of 1968,
1964?
Mr. ]VL\NKiEwicz. 1960 and I guess 1956.
Mr. Thompson. All the Avav back, every Presidental campaign back
to 1956?
Mr. Mankiew^icz. Yes, and some in 1952, as well.
Mr. Thompson. What did you find, for example, as a matter of com-
parison ? Is the unique factor of this situation the fact of the Segretti
type activities, the attributing of certain literature to a person who, did
not in fact sponsor that literature ?
Is that the unique part? We are not saying that unfair advantage
and improper activities have never occurred in any previous campaign,
are we ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. No, in my discussions of people in other cam- j
paigns, I was talking more about the more hurried things that we have '
heard about before this committee — Aviretapping, the placing of spies, j
that sort of thing. I asked each of those campaign managers. I said, if
you had the guaranteed opportunity without any fear of detection, of
having a full electronic surveillance and wiretap on everything the
opposing candidate and his headquarters were doing every day, plus a i
few well-trained spies at every headquarters, would you do it ? i
And without exception, they all said no, they would not.
Mr. Thompson. I know Mr. Cliff White, for example, one of the gen-
tlemen you mentioned, and yourself.
Mr. jNIankiewicz. That is right.
Mr. Thompson. And, of course. Senator Baker said the other day he
felt that the professional politician has taken a bum rap throughout
this whole thing.
Mr. JNIankiewicz. I agree.
Mr. Thompson. Would you pretty much agree that what we have
seen in the testimony has not been thought out or carried out by a
professional politician as you would describe one ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. That is right. Tlie yiomt I have made is that it is
not characteristic in any way of Republican or Democratic campaigns.
Mr. Thompson. We have heard some talk, some testimony, I be-
lieve, alluding to the 5 o'clock club in a previous campaign, when
they met at the White House and discussed A^arious aspects of the
campaign.
Do you have any familiarity Avith that kind of activity that was
discussed there?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I discussed that with JNIr. ]\Iyer Feldman, who
was chairman of that group in the 1964 campaign. That was a
rather mysterious name for really, a sort of immediate issues group.
The function of that group was to find out Avhat Senator Gohhvater
either had just said or was about to say and provide surrogates,
although in those days, they didn't have that Avord, with informa-
4623
tion with Avliicli to ans^yel■ him, preferably on the scene, preferably
before he spoke.
That involved sending volunteers over to pick up advance copies
of speeches and press releases and schedules.
Jim Hagerty, by the way, told me that in 1956, he arranged with
his counterpart at the Democratic campaign to exchange schedules
and speech texts so they wouldn't be bothered with sending volunteers
over to pick them up.
Cliff White commented on the practice of football coaches in ex-
changing the films. He said he thought that was a better analogy,
or at least one that ought to be practiced.
Mr. Thompsox. Are you familiar with the story, I believe by Mr.
Lisagor, where he states that former President Johnson told him
that Senator Goldwater, during the campaign, was going to an-
nounce that he was going to send Ike to Vietnam if elected and that
subsequently, ]\Ir. Goldwater did make that announcement, and there
was some question as to how that information was obtained.
Do you recall that story or any circumstances about it?
Mr. JSIankiewicz. No, I do not.
Mr. Thompsox. You mentioned Mr. Stewart Mott and you said
you were concerned at one point that he might have been the author
of the "Citizens for a Liberal Alternative."
At what point did this matter reach your attention and at what
point did you
Mr. Maxkiewicz. I think it was during the New Hampshire pri-
mary. I believe it was Berl Bernhard who was the manager of the
Muskie campaign who called and told me about the leaflet. I got
a copy of it. He said that he thought this w'as a very bad thing,
that we shouldn't have done it.
I said, well, we didn't do it, but T must say, it looks to me as though
maybe Stewart Mott did it and Ave have absolutely no control over him.
Mr. Thompsox. What caused you to think that ?
Mr. Maxkiew^icz. Well, if you will look at the other leaflet that
Mott did do, it has the same sort of tone.
Mr. Thompsox. Which came out first ?
Mr. Maxkiewicz. I think the true Mott document, whatever it is
called, the citizens responsibility project or whatever it was.
Mr. Thompsox. Mr. Mott, I believe, contributed approximately
$350,000 to the Senator Muskie campaign, did he not?
Mr. Maxkiewicz. No, Senator McGovern's campaign.
Mr. Thoinipsox. I am sorry, Senator INIcGovem's.
Mr. jSIaxkiewicz. He did, but onlv fr-om June of 1972 on, or per-
haps earlier than that, slightly earlier than that. At the time we are
speaking of, he had not become a supporter of Senator McGovern's
and did not do so, I think, until after Wisconsin. He made a rather
small contribution early in the campaign and told us he was making a
similar contribution to three other candidates. He made us a loan, at
one point, for the purpose, I think, of a television broadcast, which
we repaid. Then he made his major contribution over the late spring
and summer.
IMr. Thompsox. Did you have any personal contact with him during
any of this period of time ?
Mr. Maxkieavicz. Yes, I did.
4624 I
Mr. Thomtsox. Did he furnish various homes for meetings and
tliin<rs like that? -^ ^ , •
Mr. Maxkiewicz. Xo. what he did. as Rick Steams testified this
nu>rnin«r. he assumed that somehow, tlie ^rcCarthy-Lindsay-Chis-
holm->Ic'(;oveni and jierhaps some otlier candidates coadd somehow;
pet to<rether, and he provided his home occasionally for a meeting forj
rei)re,sentatives of those campaigns, which we always dutifully at-j
tended, l)ecause we had high hopes that eventually he would support,!
us and make a substantial contribution. But he never provided his
home, that I know of, for a INIcGovern meeting during that time.
Mr. TuoMPSox. Would you agree that the piece that he put out of
liis own material Avas a pretty scurrilous piece of liteiature referring;
to Senator Muskie as a liar "and that his father was a draft dodger!
and things of this nature ?
Mr. Maxkiewicz. What was your characterization of it, scurrilous?
IMr. TifOMPSOX". Scurrilous.
Mr. Max'^kiew^cz. I would not argue with that characterization.
Mr. TiiOMPSOx. Did you ever talk to him about that?
Mr. Max'kiewicz. I urged him on a number of occasions not to
doit.
Mr. Thompsox'^. Did it ever come to your attention that there had
been a discussion or plan at one point in the campaign to plant a spy
aboard either the. Xixon or the AgncAv campaign plane ?
Mr. Maxkiewicz. Late in the campaign, in the fall, I would say
latei September, maybe October I believe, there was a proposal not to
l)lant a spy but a proposal by a would-be spy to take on that activity,
a young journalist, who had some credentials and, I think, proposed
not to me but I believe to Ted Van Dyk, that he would go on the
Agnew plane and keep his ears open and see if he could pick up any
of the kind of gaffs and statements that were made on the Agniew
plane in 1068, and I think he wanted us to pay his expenses, and Ave
tui'ued it down.
Mr. Tiio:mi'S()x. Plow did itcome to your attention?
Mr. Maxkiewicz. I think Van Dyk, I may be wrong about this, but
T thiidv Van Dyk and Henry Kimmelman, Avho Avas our finance chair-
man, met with me and described the possibility and said that this offer ,
had been made, and we decided for a variety of reasons not to do it.
Mr. TiioMi'sox. Did they jiresent it to you in the nature of a possible
program that might be carried out, and" the three of you were to de-
cide together as to whether or not it would be ?
Ml-. ArAXKiEwicz. AVell, they reported that the offer had been made,
ves. T think everyone's disposition Avas to turn it doAvn. T think every-
iKxlv had his own reasons for it, for turning it doAvn.
Mr. TiioMPsox. Do you knoAv Mr. Rodney Smith?
^fr. Maxkieavicz. I am not sure hoAv aa'cII I knoAv him. I knoAV he
worked for us in the cami)aign.
Mr. TiioMpsox. Did you ever discuss this matter Avith him ?
Mr. Maxkieavicz. Xo.
Mr. TnoMPsox. Do you knoAv Avhether or not the situation had
reached the i)oint where credentials, false credentials, had been ob-
tained for the young man?
Mr. Maxkiewicz. My understanding Avasthat he had credentials.
Mr. I iioMPsox. He already had credentials aboard the AgneAv
4625
Mr. Mankiewicz. Well, I assume they would have been sufficient.
He was in fact representing a couple of 'publications and that he felt
at least those would be sufficient, but it never got to that.
Mr. Thompson. AVhat was the proposal — that he was to find out what
he could and report it back to you ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. Yes, he was sort of going to do the same kind of
thing that Murray Chotiner provided on our plane. We did not know
about Chapman's friends at that time, but that was, in effect, what he
was proposing.
Mr. Thompson. What was Walter Sheridan's function during the
campaign, Mr. Mankiewicz ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. Walter was an investigator. He is one of the best
investigators and for a while investigative reporters that I know of.
He was employed in the McGovern campaign — I am a little hazy on the
dates but, the financial records would show it — I would think perhaps
mid- August, and worked until the middle of October wlien we, tem-
porarily at least, ran out of money or at least indicated that maybe we
had made our last payroll. His main job was to report to me on the
status of the Watergate investigation, the Watergate case. I was travel-
ing with Senator McGovern at that time. There was very little news
except in Washington, and Walter's job was not only to keep us up to
date on the material that appeared in the press, but also to try to stay
a little bit ahead of it. He knows a lot of reporters and was able from
time to time, to tell us stories that were going to appear or were about
to appear, and in that way we were able to keep Senator McGovern
up to date on Watergate day by day.
In addition, he also did a rundown on the executive committee or
whatever it was, it turned out, I guess, to be the whole committee,
of the Democrats for Nixon, to let us know which ones of them were
in trouble with the Government, which ones were only in prospective
trouble with the Government. He did that by consulting public records
over at the Justice Department and FTC and elsewhere. That was his
basic job. He may have had a couple of things that he undertook from
time to time, but he was basically reporting to me.
Mr. Thompson. Why did you need to know what Democrats for
Xixon were in trouble with the Government?
Mr. Mankiewicz. Because it seemed to me, frankly, Mr. Thompson,
that that was why they were Democrats for Nixon.
' Mr. Thompson. They were in trouble with the Government?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I had a feeling that perhaps that might have
animated some of them, yes.
Mr. Thompson. Did you have any basis for that knowledge, or was
that an assumption on your part ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. Well, it was in part an assumption. U e knew
that some of them had had some kind of tax trouble and that sort ot
-hing. .
Mr. Thompson. Do you know how many Democrats for Nixon were
n the country, according to their figures, anyway ?
. Mr. Mankiewicz. Well, I imagine a sizable number of Democrats
I rated for Nixon. The number that were members of that organiza-
jdon, Ihavenoidea. „ ^. , _^ fV,of
; Mr. Thompson. AVliat about John Connally, did you as-ume that
I possibly he was in trouble with the Government, that was the leason
le headed Democrats for Nixon ?
ago- 74 - pt. 11
4626
Mr. Mankiewicz, No, no.
Mr. Thompson. Did you obtain any information on him ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. No.
Mr. Thompson. Why ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. Why did we not? I guess there was not any ol
the kind we were looking for.
Mr. Thompson. You had to look in order to make that determination,
did you not ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I was not thinking of Secretary Connally. We
always assumed that he was in the process of moving to the Republican
Party in any event. He had served as Secretary of the Treasury ; there
was every reason for him to support Nixon.
Mr. Thompson. There were certain Democrats for Nixon
Mr. Mankiewicz. Well, they used to take ads and list 20 or 30 sort
of prominent types. I mean, as it turned out, of course, the Committee
To Re-Elect the President was paying all the bills of that organization.
It was not really an organization at all. So it is hard to determine how'
many members it had.
Mr. Thompson. Did Mr. Sheridan ever check these names with the
Justice Department or the Price Commission or any other governmen-
tal agency ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. He either did himself or headed up a small force
of volunteers who would monitor the lists of contributors that the
Nixon campaign would publish fi'om time to time, when it began to
comply with the April 7 Financing Act, and we would run those
names against decisions of the Price Commission to see if any of them
had received favorable consideration. We found out some things
through that device. I think we found out about Clement Stone's in-
surance company getting unlimited price increases that way.
Mr. Thompson. "What about the Justice Department ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I am not sure whether he ever developed anv
information from the public records of the Justice Department or not.
]Mr. Thompson. But you are sure they were all from public records ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. Oh, yes; yes, I am. As you recall, the Justice
Department was not very hospitable to our campaign at that time, at
that point in time.
Mr. Thompson. You know there will be a complete turnover in the
Justice Department as administrations change, do you not?
Mr. Mankiewicz. By 1972, it looked pretty complete to me.
Mr. Thompson. Do you have any information concerning Dick Tuck
having printed the phone numbers of the top GOP staff attending the
Republican Convention and publishing the phone numbers ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. No, I do not, but it is plausible. I do not know
what he did at the Republican Convention. At both conventions, he
published a newspaper called "Reliable Source" which had some funny
stories.
Mr. Thompson. But you do not know anything about this particular
incident, to your personal knowledge?
Mr. Mankiewicz. No, I do not.
Mr. Thompson. Did the IMcGovern campaign have what is referred
to as a^trutJi squad and what you referred to in the campaign as trutli
squad ? ^ "
Mr. MANKIEW^cz. I understand a truth squad to be a collection of
usually public officials following the other candidate around collect-
4G27
iiig what the candidate believes to be errors and untruths from city
to city. In that sense, we did not, because the other candidate did not
go around and campaign. There was no one to follow.
Mr. Thompson. Did you have any method or procedure whereby
you developed information on people in the administration during
the campaign ?
Mr. ]VL\NKiEwicz. Could you be more explicit?
Mr. Tjigmpson. Well, pe'ople surrounding the President, for ex-
ample, any information concerning any of these people which could
be used in some political way ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. Only, I think, only in respect to their participa-
tion or only to the extent of their participation in the Watergate.
Mr. ThojVipsox. Only with regard to the Watergate ?
Mr. Maxkkiew'icz. I believe that is the only thing I recall.
Mr. Thompsox. I believe you stated previously to us that Mr. Sheri-
dan furnished you with a notebook of some kind or you kept a note-
book which he supplemented, and you did not recall if you still had
that. Do you know today Avhether or not you have it?
Mr. Maxkiewicz. I do not. Mr. Thompson, but if I do not have it,
I know where it is; and if you will still want that, I believe I can
furnish it.
Mr. Thompsox. Thank you, I have no further questions.
Senator Moxtoya. Mr. Mankiewicz, all throughout the hearings we
have heard some of the witnesses say in an exculpatory manner, they
used the words or the sentence "They all do it," or "It is politics as
usual with respect to dirty tricks."
Now, can you capsulize your reaction to this, and tell us whether
it is general or whether it is prevalent in every election and, if not, why
do you think so?
Mr. Maxkiewicz. I think those statements are part of the coverup,
Senator, and I think they are very damaging. I think if we come out
of tliese hearings with a substantial number of the American people
believing that this sort of thing is politics as usual and that they
all do it that the country Avill have suffered very badly. I don't
believe it is politics as usual. As I said I don't know anybody else
that does it. I know we didn't, I don't know of any other campaign
that did. In the course of my talking to people in other Presidential
campaigns I am convinced it is only the Nixon campaigns that do this.
Senator Moxtoya. I haA^e been in many campaigns myself and these
instances are very isolated. They are not politics as usual, and when
they do occur we uncover them. I am referring to quite a few instances
in the last 12 years in State, local, and national campaigns. But would
you affree with me that this is the first time that this kind of an ap-
proach, a dirty tricks approach, has been under the auspices of a
Presidential campaign structure?
Mr. Mankiewicz. With the possible exception of 1968. I am not
convinced about 1968 but certainly in general, yes, I would agree with
that st atement.
Senator Moxtoya. Would you say that this was broader than 1968^
Mr. Maxkiewicz. Yes. Yes, I would. I think this is, at least the
evidence that's come out certainly is, totally unprecedented as tar as
many of the activities are concerned. ,
Senator ]\Ioxtoya. Can you tell us about the other dirty tricks that
were practiced on the McGovern campaign, and who they were prac-
ticed by ?
4628
Mr. ]Maxkie\vicz. Well, Senator, I am unable to identify who they
were done by, and it may be that many of the things that we now
categorize as dirty tricks that were done to the ^IcGovern campaign •
were by freelance people, by a certain number of kooks that I guess one
always runs into in a political campaign, but I think with all of the
evidence that we have here there is a reasonable presumption that
some, if not all, of them were done by agents of the Xixon campaign.
I spoke of the events in New Hampshire. There were, I would say.
between 20, .30, 40 cases throughout the campaign, not only in the
spring but also in the fall when the people who were in charge of j
McGovern campaign events would be called and told, whoever was i
calling, was from the INIcGovern campaign that the event was not
going to take place, the Senator was not coming or changing the date
or the time when, in fact, that was not the case, the result of that would
be delayed preparations for the meeting a day or so and then it would
be put back on.
We have evidence that in Los Angeles, for example, just prior to a
big rally at the Sports Arena every radio station in town was called
at about 5 o'clock that evening by someone purporting to be from the
McGovern press office, announcing the meeting had been canceled and
that cancellation was then put out on all the radio stations, and it cost
us a full house by the time we were able to correct the report.
There are a lot of examples of that. There are a lot of examples of
traditional Democratic leaders and labor people being phoned at
embarrassing times with insulting messages and being told to be at
a certain meeting which never took place. I am thinking particularly
in New Jersey of a couple of times labor people in Jersey City and. T
believe, in Newark, were called and peremptorily ordered to be at a
meeting with Sargent Shriver at 8 o'clock in the morning, and they
were called about 5 :30 or 6 in the morning and told it was a McGovern
coordinator calling and told to be at a meeting at 8 o'clock and, of
course, a meeting was not scheduled, it had never been put on, it all
contributed to a lot of bitterness in the Democratic Party.
Senator INIoxtgya. What about the call to President ^leany of the
AFI^CIO?
Mr. Maxkiewicz. That call came prior to the Democratic Conven-
tion, about a week before. Somebody called to President Meany's
secretary, asked to speak to ]\Ir. INIeany, was told that he was not
there. The caller said, "Well, this is Gary Hart, Senator McGovern's
campaign manager, and if Mr. Meany knows what is good for him.
he will be in New York tomorrow to meet with Senator McGovern."
It did not better relations between Mr. ]Meanv and Senator McGov-
ern. Indeed, it embittered them and I have a feeling that perhaps to
this day they still
Senator Moxtoya. When did you find out about this call ?
Mr. Maxkiewicz. I believe it was about 3 or 4 days later because
at that time we were trying to set up such a meeting.
Senator Moxtoya. And what did you do about the call? I
Mr, Maxkiewicz. Well, Gary Hart was told about it from, I believe, ,
a columnist who reports generally on labor matters, and he called and;
said that Mr! Meany was furious that this call had been made and hadi
no intention now of meeting with Senator McGoveni and was angry. '
And Gary said that he had not made such a call and indeed ho had been
out of the city on the day the call was supposed to have been made.
4629
He endeavored to tell Mr. Meany's secretary that he did not make the
call. We tried to make it clear that we had not, but I think they believed
that he had, and certainly there was no evidence in the record at the
tune to indicate that anybody else was doing that sort of activity.
Senator Montoya. Were there any calls to Walter Cronkite?
Mr. Mankiewicz. W^alter Cronkite called me one day in late Sep-
tember, I believe, and asked me if I had called him the night before,
and I said, "No, I had not," and he then proceeded to tell me of a very
curious call in which someone had phoned pretending to be me, and had
discussed with Cronkite an arrangement, said this person pretending
to be me said : "You know, Walter, we have this arrangement where
McGovern gets 80 percent of the news coverage and Nixon gets 20
percent and I just want to tell you it's going fine but the press is start-
ing to notice it and you had better shift the balance a little bit." I
think at that point Mr. Cronkite got a little suspicious. He got angry
at the caller, and he said it didn't sound very much like me but he
thought perhaps it was a bad connection or maybe I had a cold or
something, but the caller seemed to know my schedule, because he
mentioned to Mr. Cronkite I was going to be in New York, whatever
the day was, when indeed we were going to be in New York. So it had
at least that air of plausibility.
I have never been able to miderstand the reason for that, except
possibly in the hopes that maybe Mr. Cronkite would tliink there was
humor involved and might say something to suggest that there was
such an arrangement and if the call was taped he might later see it in
print somewhere, that is his belief that he was being set up.
Senator Montoya. Wliat about the Arab endorsement by the com-
mittee and by the Action Committee on Arab Relations in California.
Do you know about that ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I remember it, and I have always suspected it.
That is a paper committee that Mr. Mehdi runs, and it is a committee
that exulted publicly over the assassination of Robert Kennedy. I re-
member that very well, and I found it difficult to believe that that com-
mittee would endorse Senator McG-ovem without some inducement
but I was never able to prove that one had been provided.
Senator Montoya. Did you ascertain whether or not it was a legiti-
mate committee?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I had made up my mind sometime before that
it was not.
Senator Montoya. Did you ask for the endorsements of this com-
mittee on behalf of Senator McGovem ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. No, no ; at no time, and indeed we specifically re-
pudiated it at that time.
Senator Montoya. But it was advertised, wasn't it?
Mr. Mankiewicz. Yes ; it was and it continued to be advertised long
after we had repudiated it.
Senator Montoya. Now, what about the demonstration in the Doral
Hotel lobby in Miami. Do you think that was staged?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I thought at the time there was something wrong
with it. The lobby filled up with a number of people dressed in what
used to be a bizarre manner either from Miami Beach, they had a num-
ber of, it seemed to me, incoherent complaints against Senator Mc-
Govern. Some of them wanted to know why Stewart Mott, who had a
lot of General Motors stock, was supporting Senator McGovern when
4630
General Motors was committing some terrible act somewhere in the
world, I forget what it was. It was not the kind of complaint one ordi-
narily heard.
They filled the lobby and seemed to me to be provoking a conflict
with the police. I spoke during that day to Chief Pomerantz of the
Miami Beach Police Department and told him that under any cir-
cumstances we did not want a confrontation with the police, and he
agreed with me. The hotel, of course, wanted only to get those people
out of there and were willing to call the police to do so. I finally went
down and talked to them and made a deal. If Senator McGovern would
talk to them they would leave and they did finally leave, but it struck
me at the time they were people dressed as hippies, and then when I
heard Mr. Hunt's testimony that he had got Bernard Barker to hire
some hippies to walk around the Miami Beach hotels and embarrass
Senator McGoveni I felt my judgment had been confirmed.
Senator Montoya. Were there similar situations across the country
during the course of the campaign ?
Mr. Maxkiewicz. There were. Senator, but I am not prepared to
say that any or all of them were stimulated by the opposition. They
may have been. Certainly we now know it would have been in character
for them to be stimulated. There were a number that seemed to be
an extraordinary number of people showing up at McGovem meetings
with signs saying "Gays for McGovern," and in general, I think there
probably was an attempt to make it seem that the McGovern campaign
had an unusual number of bizarre people attached to it. We had Mr.
Porter's testimony here that, I think it was Mr. Colson, hired a picket
to wear bizarre clothing and parade up and down in front of the
White House with a McGovern button. I would imagine that that was
duplicated at various times around the country.
Senator Moxtoya. Did you have any breakins at the different Mc-
Govern headquarters throughout the country?
^Ir. ]Mankiewicz. There were some. There was a breakin in the
Ohio headquarters and a tile in the ceiling had been tampered with,
leading the people there to believe that an attempt had been made toj
place a bug. :
There were some other breakins at various headquarters around tha
country and some under suspicious circumstances, but, you see, at the]
time we didn't have the information that we have now, that this wasii
part of the method of operation of the Nixon campaign. |
Senator Moxtoya. What about the computerized list in California,!
what can you tell us about that? |
Mr. Mankiewicz. Well, in California our campaign was run in large]
part by a man named Myles Rubin who had been in New Hampshire
and had observed firsthand the success we had had in effect cataloging
everv^ voter. Democratic voter, in the State, and going after them to
find out their pivforences, rating them on a scale of 1 to 5 of how they
felt about Senator McGovern and then going out and polling them on
election day. I think we got every vote in New Hampshire by that
technique. But that was a small State and vei*y few Democratic voters.
California was a big State and ]Mr. Rubin thought he would go out
and hire a computer and do the same thinjy. He hired a computer firmi
called "Computer Ideas" which had worked for Democratic candi-
dates in the past, and we had, as you recall, a million of them. Demo-
4631
crats, in California. We were able to put on a computer list the name,
address, phone number, age, race, sex, occupation of about 95 percent
of the Democrats in the State, and we then had on that printout
whether they favored Senator McGovern, were leaning toward him,
were undecided, were leaning against him or were opposed to him,
one, two, three, four and five, and we used that list on primary day to
pull out the people we thought would be our voters.
Xow, that firm was either incompetent or worse during the primary.
We had a lot of fights with them. They weren't around when we needed
them. They left a lot of mail on sidings indeed, at the end of the cam-
paign there was so much undelivered mail they made us a substantial
refund, but we won the campaign so we didn't worry so much about
our grievances against them.
But then I discovered just a few months ago, that firm had been
bought before we hired them, by Mr. Kalmbach and his associates.
Whether they deliberately sabotaged us during the primary or not, I
don't know, but I do knoAv after the primary ]\Ir. Kalmbach was then
in control of a computerized list of every Democrat in the State of
California, with his preferences as to Senator McGovern, and in Cali-
fornia if you don't get the votes of a substantial portion of the Demo-
crats if you are a Republican CRndidat<^. you don't carry the State.
And I believe quite firmly that the possession of that list and the
ability to mail directly to the fours and fives on that list, may very well
have made the difference in California in November.
Senator Moxtoya. Mr. Mankiewicz, my time is up.
I now defer to Senator Weicker.
Senator Weicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one
question.
I have been trying to refresh mv recollection of matters raised at the
ver}' outset of these hearings, and specifically, as I recall, both in testi-
mony given before the committee and in an inquiry which I made of
the Internal Security Division of the Justice Department, I think the
committee and I were led to believe that the information given by the
Internal Security Division of the Justice Department to Mr. IMcCord
and the Committee To Re-Elect the President, was also made available
to the Democratic candidates.
Could you comment upon that? Was there any relationship between
Mr. McGovern's campaign and the Internal Security Division of the
Justice Department?
• Mr. Mankiewicz. I remember that testimony. Senator, and at the
time, I tried to get a statement out that it was false, that at no time
did we receive any information from the Internal Security Division
or anywhere else in the Justice Department, or for that matter, any-
svhere else in the Government except the Secret Service.
Senator Weicker. There was no contact between Mr. Mitchell's
office or any other department of the Justice Department and the
McGovern campaign ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. Only covertly, as it turns out.
Senator Weicker. Would you say that the record is quite adequate
is the place to draw the line as to what you investigate as far as your
opponent is concerned? You have had a great deal of experience
aere, and the concept of spying has been thrown out on the table.
[, of course, flatly reject it. I don't feel it has any part in American
4632
campaigns, and to go through all these convolutions and academic
exercises to justify it, I think is a lot of nonsense.
But clearly, people are looking for where to draw the line insofar
as investigation is concerned. To me, in any event, and I would like
to have your comment on it, the line is a very simple one. That which
is a matter of public record is fair game for a political campaign.
Mr. Mankiewicz. I would go beyond that. Senator, and say not
only a question of examining public records, but also acting in a
campaign in an open manner. That is, making no attempt to conceal
who you are and for whom you are working. I think a more serious
question even than poring through trash, for example, or checking
on a candidate's personal habits, which I agree is a dangerous prece-
dent, but I think even more dangerous than that is this practice of
putting out statements in the name of one candidate, when in fact,
they are paid for and put out by another. I think that goes right to
the heart of the process.
Senator Weicker. I would agree. I meant to restrict myself strictly
to the investigatory process, and I agree on these other matters also.
I might add that even if more sophisticated Washington doesn't
get the message, I was interested in noting the other day a poll taken
by a very well-known polling firm across the United States, asking
the question as to whether or not White House spying on the personal
lives of politicians was a justified act or a proper act, and the answer
from the American people came back, 83 percent to 8 percent, no. So
maybe some people might be trying to justify this kind of business
before the committee, but as usual, the American voter has pretty
good sense on these matters. He is not buying it, is what I am saying.
Mr. Mankiewicz. I noticed that finding. Senator, with consider-
able gratification as well.
Senator Weicker. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Montoya. Mr. Mankiewicz, I just have one more question.
Do you have any reason to believe that the phones at any of the
McGovern headquarters were tapped during the course of the
campaign ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I have no proof of it, Senator, but I believe that
they were from time to time. It seemed to me that a number of private
conversations between me and, for the most part. Senator McGovern
himself in his Senate office, became known very quickly under circum- ,
stances which indicated to me that somebody else must have been listen-
ing, because they were not matters that either Senator McGovern or I
would be talking about.
Now, it is possible that they might have been overheard in some
other way. But again, considering what we know, I would, until I can
establish to the contrary, I would be inclined to think that perhaps
they were.
Senator Montoya. Well, as a matter of fact, Whenever a telephone
is bugged, it is very hard to detect it, is it not ? |
Mr. Mankiewicz. I believe that to be correct, yes.
Senator Montoya. I believe that has been the expert testimony ad-
duced here.
Mr. Mankiewicz. I see testimony from time to time, by telephone
company executives, that you do not hear clinkings on the line or any-
thing like that, that it is impossible to detect, and I believe that is
correct.
4633
Senator Montoya. Do you have any suggestions as to what this com-
mittee should do to try to clean up politics in the United States and to
try to prevent the very things that happened by way of dirty tricks?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I share some of the belief that was expressed by
Mr. Stearns this morning, that you are not going to be able to legislate
decency, and that an enormous amount of decency in American poli-
tics depends upon the character of the people who are practicing it.
We have made it almost for 200 years now with only one campaign
that exhibits these characteristics, and I think that is not a bad record,
if you look at it that way.
I think there are legal or legislative loopholes. I think espionage,
purporting to work for another candidate when you are being paid
by someone else, should be illegal if it is not already. I think stealing
political material from a campaign for the purpose of using it in an-
other campaign can be reached. I think the kind of thing we have
talked about here, of publishing a press release or a leaflet in the name
of one candidate when, in fact, he is not responsible for the material,
should be dealt with very severely. I think people ought to be able to
count on the fact that when they see something from a candidate, it
is indeed from him.
Beyond that, I think the question of financing is, of course, a very
serious one, but I think that seems to be being dealt with. I think we
ought to be heading in the direction of public financing.
But in general. I think the question of disclosure, so that at all times
people would be able to know for whom, for which candidate somebody
is working, is crucial. But I think we can also be stampeded into a lot
of legislation that may not be needed, because what is really needed is
that we nominate and ultimately elect public officials and support in
campaigns people who have a respect for the system. And in general,
we have had that.
Senator Montoya. What do you think of situations where vilification
and libelous statementse are made in advertisements, say, on the eve of
an election when you cannot deny them or repeal them in any way ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. I think that is a difficult area. Libel, free speech,
are all mixed in there. I know there are some States that will not per-
mit any paid political material to go out in the 3 days before an elec-
tion or in the 4 days before. I think that is probably useful.
But still, you cannot prevent a candidate from saying anything he
wants even on election eve. But I think people are getting a little
sophisticated about that sort of thing and probably tend to reject it
anyway. I think ultimately, you have to rely on the good sense of the
I voter.
I Senator Montoya. And most of this deceptive material is usually
I under the name of some fake committee.
! Mr. Mankiewicz. There, I think you can rsach it. I think the whole
s question of committees and who is responsible for them should be
tightened up and I think there should be much stiffer penalties. I think
if somebody went off to jail for that sort of thing, or as I say, if some
political penalty were imposed somewhere along the line, then I
think it would stop quickly.
Senator Montoya. Do you have any other suggestions ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. No, Senator; I must say I haven't really given
an awful lot of thought to legislative solutions, because I have felt
4634
right alono; that what wo were witnessing here was not a breakdown of
the system, but a deliberate assault on it by a group of men who had no
respect for it. That will happen even if you have the toughest laws in
the world, as long as thev are prepared to break them.
Senator Montoya. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman,' I have just one question to follow up on
what Mr. Mankiewicz has been saying. }
You have been speaking about drawing the line of deception and i
relying on the good sense of the voter. I would like to just ask about '
one other activity which has come before this committee. That is where i
there are large ads that take up a full page of the newspaper, in which ;
indeed the text of the ad is drafted, say, by the Committee for the Re-
Election of the President but payment of the ads is paid out of the
campaign funds of the Committee To Re-Elect the President, but
there is no indication to the citizen who reads that ad in the newspaper
that it comes from the Committee To Re-Elect the President or a par-
ticular party, but there are some citizens whose names are signed to it
in some sort of committee, a citizens committee that in fact has just
been put together by the Committee To Re-Elect the President, say.
Is that the kind of thing that would fit into your category of deception ?
Mr. Mankiewicz. It gets close to the line, but I think it would. I
think there has to be some wav devised to indicate not only who the
people are who signed the ad, but who is paying for it, and not only
who is paying for it, but who is really paying for it. Democrats for
Nixon, for example, put a lot of ads in the newspapers and ran a lot
of television commercials. It turned out they were all paid for by the
Committee To Re-Elect the President. If that fact had been indicated
at the time, it might have weakened their impact somewhat. This is
the reason why the deception was practiced in the first place.
Mr. Dash. It really gets down to the question of, if you are going to I
ultimately rely on the good sense of the American voter, whether or not
he is going to have a chance to use that good sense. If he is being mis-
represented so that he believes that honest citizens like him, who be-
lieve in a certain way, put their own money into paying for such an
act, it might influence his views. But if he knew the source of the funds
and the source of the rhetoric, he might be able to just recognize
from whence it came.
Mr. Mankiewt:cz. I agree. If those ads supporting President Nixon
after the mining of the harbor at Haiphong, for instance, had had a
line at the bottom saving, "Cooy for this ad furnished by the special
counsel to the President and paid for by the President's personal coun-
sel,'' they might have had less impact.
Mr. Dash. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairaiaii. I want to
thank this witness.
Senator Montoya. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. No questions.
Senator Montoya. Senator Weicker.
Senator "VVeicker. No < uestions.
Senator Montoya. I want to thank you. Mr. Mankiewicz.
The committee will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair,
[Whereupon at 4 :15 p.m., the committee recessed subject to the call
of the Chair.]
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1973
J! U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
(Washington^ D.C.
The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :05 a.m., in room
318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chair-
man), presiding.
Present : Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Montoya, Baker, and Weicker.
Also present : Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director ; Fred
D. Thompson, minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief
counsel; David M. Dorsen, James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner,
assistant chief counsels; Marc Lackritz, W. Dennis Summers, and
Barry Schochet, assistant majority counsels ; Eugene Boyce, hearings
record counsel; Donald G. Sanders, deputy minority counsel;
Michael J. Madigan and Robert Silverstein, assistant minority coun-
sels; Jed Johnson, investigator; Pauline O. Dement, research assist-
ant ; Eiler Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye ; Ron McMahan, assist-
ant to Senator Baker ; Ray St. Armand, assistant publications clerk.
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. Counsel will call
the first witness.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, the first witness will be a staff member of
the committee, Mr. Marc Lackritz, for the purpose of giving evidence
linto the record concerning the chart which is to the committee's left.
Mr. Terry Lenzner, assistant chief counsel will direct the questioning
of Mr. Lackritz.
]VIr. Lenzer. Before we start, Mr. Chairman, may we have the chart
entered as our next exhibit ?
Senator Ervin. Yes ; the reporter will mark it with the appropriate
exhibit number.
[The chart was marked exhibit No. 248 and appears on page 4637.]
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Lackritz, can you describe what this chart pur-
ports to reflect ?
TESTIMONY OF MARC LACKRITZ
Mr. Lackritz. Yes. The chart purports to summarize in chrono-
logical fashion the polls comparing different Democratic candidates
going back to February of 1971, and at the same time the same chrono-
logical base shows the activities of a variety of individuals engaged
in either surveillance activities, information gathering, or some kinds
of sabotage in the 1972 Presidential campaign.
The chart is made out chronologically, as you can see, and there is
a color code to relate the standing of the polls of the individual candi-
(4635)
4636
date with the individuals who are focusing on the specific primaries.
So, for exam])le, while Senator Mnskie's popularity is demonstrated
in the thick black line, the individuals who were focusing on Senator
Muskie's campaign are shown here in black bars. Similarly with Sena-
tor Humphrey, the dashed green line shows his standing in the
popularity polls compared with President Nixon and Governor
IVallace, and down here the bars with the broken green line shows the
individuals who were focusing on the Hum])hrey campaign, and so
on with Senator McGovern with the broken line.
Mr. Lexzner. Do the color codes also show what geographical areas
the individuals were operating in ?
Mr. Lackritz. That is correct. On the individual bar there is a
notation to show at a particular point in time, where each individual
was located in relationship to his activities in the primaries. I think it
is interesting to note, first of all, are the polls that back in February,
March, April, May, and June of 1971, the figures from polls which
comes from the Louis Harris poll reflect Senator Muskie was in front
of both President Nixon and Governor Wallace in the three-way race
and those points are denoted by asterisks on the top of the chart. This
is the same period of time, I believe, when the earlier political strategy,
which was introduced with Mr. Buchanan was written.
]Mr. Lenzner. Now, the operations that are color coded on the bottom
relate chronologically to the popularity chart on top?
Mr., Lackritz. That is correct, and the reason they are in different
colors is to show when specific individuals would shift their focus of
their activity to other candidates so one could relate it not only to the
polls, but also to the primary elections which are shown above that.
Mr. Lenzner. And what is the lower part of the chart based on.
what information that the committee has received ?
Mr. Lackritz. Well, the lower part of the chart is based primarily
on the staff interviews that have been conducted by Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Jim Moore, Ms. DeOreo, Mr. Lee Sheehy and other members of
the staff.
Mr. Lenzner. You are a staff attorney with the committee, is that
correct ? I forgot to ask you.
Mr. Lackritz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Starting under the heading Gemstone, can you briefly
describe the activities that Mr. Gregory was involved in based on in-
terviews and other information the committee has received ?
ISIr. Lackritz. ]Mr. Gregory, as it shows on the chart, was initiallvi
hired in February of 1972 by Howard Hunt to infiltrate the ]\Iuskie
campaign.
The chart shows that Mr. Gregory w^as initially hired in February
of 1972 to infiltrate the Muskie campaign by E. Howard Hunt. He was
paid $175 a week for his activities and received a total of $3,400 over
the period of his employment. AA^iile working in the Muskie head-
quarters he was asked to provide information about a variety of dif-
ferent individuals and contributors and he passed this information
back to Mr. Hunt in the form of typed memorandums delivered to him
on a weekly basis.
I
4637
4638
Mr. Lenzner. The chart seems to show that he changed from focus-
ing on Senator Muskie's campaign to another campaign. When was
that and what precipitated that change?
Mr. Lackritz. Well, as you can see on the chart, in the middle of;
April he was directed to shift the focus of his activities from Senator
Muskie to Senator McGovern by Mr. Hunt. This period of time, as you
can see on the popularity poll chart also corresponds to Senator
Muskie's decline in the popularity polls at that time.
Mr. Lexzner. Now, I think we have had testimony from Mrs. Har-
mony and other people that there were memos prepared indicating
sources of information to the Committee To Re-Elect and other in-
dividuals. We are using codes as the sources of Ruby 1, Ruby 2, and
Crystal. Did Thomas Gregory have a code name?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes; Thomas Gregory was known as Ruby 2 since
following the activities of John Buckley testified before the com-
mittee, Mr. Buckley's activities were referred to as Ruby 1 and Mr.
Gregory as Ruby 2.
Mr. Lenzner. Again, how much did Mr. Buckley receive from his
activities ?
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Buckley received approximately $8,000.
Mr. Lenzner. The name below Buckley is Crystal. "V^^iat does that
reflect ?
Mr. Lackritz. Well, Crystal, as you can see, this box over here re-
flects the placing of electronic surveillance in the Democratic com-
mittee, which has become known as the Watergate case.
Mr- Lenzner. Xow turning to Chapman's friends can you briefly
describe their activities in what they engaged in ?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes; Chapman's friends were two newspaper re-
porters hired by Mr. Murray Chotiner and paid at the rate of $1,000
dollars a week to travel with the press entourage of different Demo-
crat candidates. Their operation began back in March of 1971 and
continued in the middle and all the way through the November
election.
Mr. Lenzner. And what do you base, what have you based, the
length of period of time for both of those individuals on, what kind
of information ?
Mr. Lackritz. That information is based on staff interviews that
have been held with Mr. Chotiner and others as well as copies of all,
of the Chapman's friends reports which have been turned over to the'
committee.
Mr. Lenzner. How much totally was paid to both of those
individuals ?
Mr. Lackritz. Roughly about $44,000 was paid in toto to those
individuals.
Mr. Lenzer. Now turning to Sedan Chair, can you describe what
activities Greaves was engaged in and who hired him?
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Greaves was contacted in the fall of 1971 by Mr.
Porter, Mr. Magruder. and \>as asked to engage in a few different
activities on the west coast. Specifically he was asked to provide pickets
at the appearance of Senator Muskie at Whittier College in Novem-
ber of 1971 whicli lie did, and he was also asked to greet the arrival of
Senator Muskie's plane at Los Angeles on one occasion with pickets
which he also attempted to do. Later he was sent 25 copies of the pam-
4639
phlet introduced earlier by Mr. Buchanan with the Citizens for a Lib-
eral Alternative. These pamphlets were sent for the purpose of dis-
tributing them at a fund-raising dinner with Muskie contributors in
which he was to place the pamphlets in the programs of the individ-
uals who were there — when they opened them up they would find the
pamphlets. Subsequently, he was hired full-time by Mr. Porter and
Mr, Magruder to travel with the Muskie campaign. He went to New
Hampshire where he spent about 3 days waiting for opportunities for
political activities in New Hampshire. Following these 3 days he went
down to Florida where he spent one day in Tampa before resigning
from his position. That is demonstrated here.
Mr- Lenzner. Do you recall who recommended Mr. Greaves for
those activities ?
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Greaves was recommended for that activity by
Mr. Allen Walker.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Allen
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Ron Walker, excuse me.
Mr. Lenzner. Who was he at the time ?
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Ron Walker was chief of the White House ad-
vance operations at that time.
Mr. Lenzner. What is he now, do you know ?
Mr. Lackritz. He is now in charge of the National Park Service,
Department of Interior.
Mr. Lenzner. Is that based on interviews with Ron Walker — Ma-
gruder and Walker?
]\Ir. Lackritz. Yes, sir, and also with Mr. Greaves.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Greaves. How much was Mr. Greaves paid ?
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Greaves was totally paid about $3,000 for his
activities.
Mr. Lenzner. And McMinoway has already testified he is Sedan
Chair II ; is that correct ?
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Greaves was actually known as Sedan Chair and
when he resigned, another individual took his place and he was known
as Sedan Chair II.
Mr. Lenzner. Who hired him ?
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. McMinoway was hired by Mr. Roger Stone who
was instructed to do so by Mr. Porter who had been instructed to do so
by Mr. Magruder.
Mr. Lenzner. How much did Mr. McMinoway receive totally ?
Mr. Lackritz. He received totally $6,000.
Mr. Lenzner. Now turning — we have had testimony from him —
■turning to the Segretti operatives. I would like you to just briefly
summarize those, the names of those individuals from whom we have
not had testimony before the committee, starting with Mr. Burdick;
has Mr. Burdick been interviewed ?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes, Mr. Burdick has been interviewed by the staff in
California.
Mr. Lenzner. What activities did he undertake under that with Mr.
Segretti ?
Mr. Lackritz. Segretti hired Mr. Burdick for the purposes of tailing
Senator Muskie when he went to Chicago in November of 197L He
followed Senator Muskie for 2 days getting places, cars and travel for
Senator Muskie and keeping track of individuals traveling with Sen-
ator Muskie. He was paid $335 for his efforts for the 2 days.
4640
Mr. Lenzner. What was his occupation at the time? '
Mr. Lackritz. At the time he was a retired individual from the CID '
who had g;one into a private detective service at that time.
Mr. Lenzner. The next name is Norton. What did lie do? {
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Norton was a friend of Mr. Segretti's in college. |
Mr. Segretti contacted him in January 1972. The primary activity of ,'
Mr. Norton was helping recruit individuals for Mr. Segretti in San 1
Francisco and Los Angeles. Mr. Norton also secured the services of J
individuals for Mr. Segretti in East St. Louis, 111., and set up a post '
office box where they could contact Mr. Segretti at a postal center in i
Los Angeles.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he on occasion travel to San Francisco to obtain
recruits for Segretti ?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes, he did. On one occasion he traveled to San Fran-
cisco and attempted to recruit four or five difi'erent individuals and
successfully recruited Mr. Silva who is on the chart.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, we have heard from Benz and Kelly. What about
O'Brien?
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. O'Brien was hired by a gentleman by the name
of Ward Turnquist, who was a friend of Mr. Chapin's from high
school. Mr. Turnquist contacted Mr. O'Brien for the purpose of in-
filtrating the Muskie campaign in Los Angeles, which Mr. O'Brien
agreed to do. Mr. O'Brien sent that information back to Mr. Turn-
quist— back to Mr. Segretti, excuse me, and Mr. Segretti would for-
ward much of it on to Mr. Chapin.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Turnquist's name came to Mr. Segretti from Mr.
Chapin, is that correct ?
Mr. Lackritz. That is correct, he was a high school friend.
Mr. Lenzner. ISIr. O'Brien has not been interviewed because he is
residing outside the country, is that correct ?
Mr. Lackritz. He is outside the United States, that is right.
Mr. Lenzner. What about Johnson ?
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Johnson was contacted by Mr. Segretti in San
Diego, Calif. This is back in the spring of 1972 Avhen the Republican
Convention was still being planned for San Diego. Mr. Segretti asked
Mr. Johnson to keep tabs on various radical groups who were planning
demonstrations for the convention. He contacted Mr. Johnson over
this period of time, about 2 months, frequently by telephone, to keep
in touch with what was happening with the radicals planning demon-
strations at the convention.
Mr. Lenzner. This information was based on interviews with John-
son and Segretti ?
Mr. Lackritz. This information is based on interviews conducted
with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Segretti, yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. What about Michael Martin ?
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Martin was contacted by Mr. Segretti in Wash
ington in 1972 for purposes of infiltrating the Humphrey campaign
Mr. Martin did in fact infiltrate the Humphrey campaign for a period
slightly over 3 months and was paid $200 by Mr. Segretti for his
efforts.
Mr. Lenzner. And going down to Mr. Visny, can you describe his
activities?
Mr. Lackritz. Information on Mr. Visny's activities is based pri-
marily on interviews with Mr. Segretti. Mr. Visny passed away in
:!
4641
an automobile accident last summer. He was Mr. Secrretti's contact for
the Illinois primary and placed newspaper ads supporting Senator
McCarthy in the Illinois primary and also participated in passing
out some literature in the Illinois primary.
Mr. Lenzner. And then going down to Mr. Zimmer, can you de-
scribe where he operated and what he did ?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes; Mr. Zimmer worked in the Pennsylvania pri-
mary, primarily. He was contacted by Mr. Segretti at the beginning
of A])ril 1972 and was told to work with pickets for appearance by
both Senator Muskie and Senator Humphrey. His notes were intro-
duced as exhibits in Mr. Segretti's testimony. They primarily consisted
of organizing pickets and occasional hecklers at appearances by
Senator Muskie.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he receive funds from Mr. Segretti ?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes, he did.
Mr. Lenzner. Was he also interviewed ?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes, he was.
Mr. Lenzner. The bottom of the chart shows two other names,
Friedman and Brill, not connected to Segretti's operation. Can you
describe their activities?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes, Mr. Friedman worked for the Republican Na-
tional Committee and was instructed bv Carl Rove to attend a youth
leadership conference held by the Muskie campaign back in Januaiy
1972. He attended the leadership conference under an assumed name
and provided infonnation back to Mr. Rove and otliers concerning
speeches given to individuals who attended the leadership conference.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he receive funds?
Mr. Lackritz. He was on the payroll at the time of the Republican
National Committee. He did not receive extra funds for that.
Mr. Lenzner. What about Mr. Brill ?
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Brill was hired by Mr. George Gorton, who was
a college friend and with the Young Voters for the President.
He was told to sit with the Quaker group in front of the "\Miite
House to get information concerning their political attitudes and find
out any plans they may have had for disruption or attendance at
the Republican Convention. He worked approximately 8 weeks and
was terminated following the Watergate break-in. He was paid a
total of $675 for his efforts.
Mr. Lenzner. Who asked Mr. Gorton to infiltrate the Quaker
group ?
Mr. Lackritz. He was told tliat l)y Mr. Ken Rietz.
Mr. Lenzner. Was Mr. Rietz following anybody's direction or
requests?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes, Mr. Rietz was following the request of Mr.
Magruder, who in turn had been requested by Mr. Colson's office to
place somebody in front of the White House with a McGovern
sticker.
Mr. Lenzner. This was based on, affirmed by interviews with Mr.
Mao-nider, Mr. Rietz, Mr. Gorton, and Mr. Brill; is that correct?
Mr. liACKRiTZ. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you also participate in, or did the staff partici-
pate in. some advice involving a group called the United Democrats for
Kennedy ?
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11
4642
Mr. Lackritz. Yes, they did.
Mr. Lenzner. Describe that.
Mr. Lackritz. Yes, that is a letter sent out on the letterhead of
the United Democrats for Kennedy over the signature of Mr. Robin
Ficker, Democrat of Maryland. Mr. Ficker had been contacted by
an individual named Mike Abramson, who asked Mr. Ficker if he
were interested in supporting a write-in campaign for Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Ficker said he was and was later brought a copy of a letter to
sign by an individual he identified as Bill Robinson, who identified
himself as a supporter of Mr. Kennedy from 16th Street. Mr. Ficker
signed the letter and it was subsequently mailed out to residents of
New Hampshire. The mailing was paid for by funds coming from
the Committee To Re-Elect the President and the mailing was ac-
complished by using the Committee To Re-Elect the President's
mailing list in New Hampshire. The mailing was sent out and there
were subsequent press conferences held by Mr. Ficker urging them to
support a write-in ^or Kennedy.
Mr. Lenzner. Was the letter urging people to write in, in New
Hampshire, primarily votes for Senator Kennedy?
Mr. Lackritz. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. And is there information that reflects that the letter
was drafted and paid for by the Committee To Re-Elect, and on
the mailing list that was submitted by them or used by them, is
that based on interviews conducted by this committee?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes, it is.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of Mr.
Lackritz.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Thompson.
Ml'. Thompson. Mr. Lackritz, as I understand it, you are stating the
facts based upon the polling that was done and not drawing any con-
clusions from those facts, is that basically correct ?
Mr. Lackritz. That is correct, Mr. Thompson. It is just to lay out
the facts of the poll.
Mr. Thompson. And, of course, you have the rise and decline of
various candidates there. You have some things that are possibly for
consideration before that with regard to the activities of the various
Segretti operatives and so forth. That chart does not include other
factors which might enter into the rise and decline of a particular
candidate such as the public response to the candidate's position on
certain issues, does it ?
Mr. Lackritz. Certainly not.
Mr. Thompson. And it does not consider the fact or the possibility
of the ability of the candidates to raise funds ?
Mr. Lackritz. No, it does not. There was a very limited purpose in
constructing the chart.
Mr. Thompson. Or the extent and quality of their advertising ?
Mr. Lackritz. Certainly not.
Mr. Thompson. Nor the effect of decisions to enter certain pri-
maries or not to enter certain primaries that might prove wise or un-
wise in retrospect.
I notice here in the chart that Mr. Buckley's testimony — I believe
it was — was that he was purloining certain documents from the
Muskie campaign at one particular time, copying those documents and
sending them back.
4643
Mr. Lackritz. That is correct.
Mr. Thompson. Is that substantially correct ?
Mr. Lackritz. That is correct.
Mr. Thompson. I notice here that Mr. Muskie's most dramatic rise
seems to be from the middle of September to the middle of January and
Mr. Buckley's activities started the first part of September and con-
tinued on past January, but it seems that the beginning of his activi-
ties of purloining Senator Muskie's documents and Senator Muskie's
rise correspond. Would that be correct ?
Mr. Lackritz. Obviously, they correspond on the chart. As you
pointed out before, I am not sure we should draw any conclusions
from the chart.
Mr. Thompson. Any corralation?
Mr. Lackritz. I think another interpretation one might offer on the
chart, Mr. Thompson, is that obviously, the activities of the individ-
uals would be directed against front runners and one might interpret
the chart in that way, too, that an individual's rise and fall seems to be
more actively related to these activities.
Mr. Thompson. What about Mr. Greaves, Sedan Chair — whose ac-
tivities ?
JNIr. Lackritz. Senator Muskie's.
Mr. Thompson. His activities were being carried out during this
period of time, too, were they not ?
Mr. Lackritz. That is correct.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I have no more questions.
Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya.
Senator Montoya. I have no questions.
Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. I have no questions, sir.
Senator Ervin. Senator Weicker.
Senator Weicker. No questions.
Senator Ervin. Senator Talmadge.
Senator Taliniadge. No questions.
Senator Ervin. Senator Baker.
Senator Baker. I have no questions.
Senator Ervin. And I have no questions.
Mr. Lenzner. Just one item, I forgot to go into with Mr. Lackritz.
Did you also conduct an investigation with the staff involving the
allegations concerning the American Independent Party, and the re-
moval of registered voters names from the list in California ?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes, we did.
Mr. Lenzner. Would you just briefly describe the results of that
investigation ?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes; an individual by the name of Robert Walters
in California was formerly with the American Independent Party. He
sought to reregister voters in the American Independent Party to take
them off the ballots so Governor Wallace could not run as a third party
candidate in California in 1972. He contacted third party individuals
and met with Mr. Magruder in the fall of 197L Mr. Magruder agreed
subsequently, after conferring with Mr. Mitchell, to send $10,000 out
to the effort to reregister American Independent Party voters. This
was done by sending fimds through Mr. Lyn Nofziger, who at that
time was at the Republican National Commil:tee, who subsequently had
4644
them sent to Mr. Jack Lindsey, a businessman out in Los Angeles, who
subsequently paid the money in four or five different installments to
Mr. Robert Walters. Mr. Waltere enlisted the help of Mr. Glenn
Parker, who formerly had been an organizer with the American In-
dependent Party and also subsequently attempted to have a canvass of
individual voters of the American Independent Party to have
them change their registration to Republican. This effort required a
number of individuals to be canvassers. Among the individuals that
were recruited for this effort were members of the American Nazi
Party in southern California. We have copies submitted to us of checks
that were given to individuals of the American Nazi Party through
Mr. Walters' bank account.
Mr. Lenzner. And this information was based on interviews with
the individuals you have just named ?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes; Mr. Glenn Parker, Mr. Walters, Mr. Joseph
Tomassi, who was the individual in the American Nazi Party, Mr.
Magruder, Mr. Nof ziger, and Mr. Lindsey.
Mr. Lenzner. OneT>ther question. On the lower part of the chart,
what was the total amount that was paid out to the individuals listed
on that chart?
Mr. Lackritz. Well, the sum of all the parts from Gemstone all the
way through all the Segretti individuals, also Mr. Brill, but not includ-
ing the money spent to Watergate break-in comes to approximately
$110,000.
Mr. Lenzner. That is all I have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator ER\aN. Call the next witness.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Berl Bernhard.
Senator Ervin. Will you raise your right hand ?
Do you swear that the evidence you shall give to the Senate Select
Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities shall be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Bernhard. I do.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lenzner will question Mr. Bernhard.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Bernhard, would you state and spell your name
and give us your address, please?
TESTIMONY OF BERL BERNHARD
Mr. Bernhard. My name is Berl Bernhard, B-e-r-1, last name is
B-e-r-n-h-a-r-d.
My law firm address is 1660 L Street Northwest, Washington, D.C.
I live in Bethesda, Md.
Mr. Lenzner. And I notice you are accompanied by some materials
and also individuals. Do you want to identifj^ any of those?
Mr. Bernhard. Yes; I do. I am not, in fact, represented by counsel
here, but two of my partners, Ronald Natalie and Harry McPherson
and John Merrigan, an associate in my firm, are here because of the
voluminous quantity of data which we brought with us today and on
which I may need some help.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Bernard, you prepared a statement.
Would you like to go ahead and begin to read that statement?
4645
First, perhaps it might be useful if we could just get a brief descrip-
tion of your prior professional responsibilities and activities before
you begin.
Mr. Berniiakd. I have been in Washington, D.C., since 1954. 1 served
as law clerk to Judge Luther W. Youngdahl for a few years, then I
went back in private practice. President Kennedy nominated me to be
Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Right^, I was confirmed by
the Senate ; and served in that capacity for 2 years.
I went back into practice and while I was practicing I served as an
adjunct professor of law, Georgetown University. I also served as a
consultant to the Office of the Secretary of State for a number of years
while I was in practice.
I also had the job as general counsel to the Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee, from which job I resigned when I went into the
campaign, and to which job I have subsequently been reappointed.
Mr. Lenzner. Thank you. Mr. Bernhard. Why don't you go ahead
and begin now with your statement.
Mr. Bernhard. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, dur-
ing this past year. I have had many occasions to reflect on the course
of Senator Muskie's campaign for the Democratic nomination in 1972.
I would like to share some of my conclusions with the committee today.
Although I was deeply involved in the INIuskie effort, first as an ad-
visor and later as campaign manager, I will try to speak with some ob-
jectivity about it.
Living with the memory of having been a key operative in the con-
duct of a losing Presidential primary effort on behalf of a frontrunner
is not heartwarming. So at the start, I must confess that I bear a few
scars. I ask you to please understand that nothing that I say is intended
to rationalize our defeat in any way whatsoever. We made mistakes
and those mistakes were costly.
I am going to talk principally about two aspects of the campaign :
The problems of financing it, and the problems that came from being
the No. 1 target of dirty tricks. Tliey are to some extent interrelated,
since the damage that was done to us by dirty tricks had an impact on
our ability to raise funds. That impact cannot be precisely measured,
but I think there is no question of its existence.
Background of Campaign
Let me try to put into perspective the nature of the Muskie cam-
paign. Interest in Senator Muskie as a national leader began during
the mid-1960's and reached an early peak during his campaign for
the Vice Presidency in 1968, where he emerged as an articulate, candid
and attractive public figure — one capable of reconciling some of the
bitter animosity that had divided the Democratic Party in the wake
of Chicago and had infected the country as a result of Vietnam, dis-
orders on the campuses and riots in the cities.
During 1969 and 1970, a number of people, drawn to him by the
character of his 1968 campaign, urged him to make a try for the 1972
nomination. He was interested, but he was also aware that as a Senator
from Maine with no builtin organizational or institutional base of sup-
port and with little access to financial resources, the road to the con-
vention would be very long and very difficult — and it was.
4646
Subsequently, Senator Muskie spoke on nationwide television in
response to a speech by President Nixon immediately prior to the 1970
congressional elections. The quality and forcefulness of that address
gave new impetus to a })ossible Muskie candidacy. So did an early
Harris poll of January 1971, which showed Senator Muskie beating
President Nixon 43 to 40 percent.
A copy of this poll is contained in exhibit No. 244-1. Also shown in
that exhibit are poll results for the entire pre-primary and primary
campaign period.
1971 Efforts
During early 1971, he began to travel throughout the country to test
whether there was genuine interest in him as a candidate. The results
of those travels were sufficiently encouraging to cause Senator Muskie
to begin organizing a small campaign staff which had three principal
responsibilities: policy guidance, political organization, and fund-
raising. During the following months, a number of capable people
joined the staff or otherwise committed themselves to work in one or
another of these areas. By the summer of 1971, he had become the clear
frontrunner for the 1972 nomination. During the fall of 1971, many
of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate publicly pledged their sup-
port to him, as did several Governors and mayors.
What happened between the spring of 1971 when this effort began
in earnest and the late sprins: of 1972 when Senator Muskie withdrew
as an active primary candidate, is well known, so far as the vote
count in the primaries is concerned. The reasons why the Muskie
effort failed to succeed are much more complicated.
To understand what was done and why, let me turn to September
1971. We had decided during the summer of 1971 that we should come
out of the corner fast. The strategy was to maintain that impetus
because Senator Muskie was ahead, and we saw our job as that of
keeping him there. We planned a 4-month schedule, commencing in
September and leading into the primaries as a campaign unit.
I would like to point out here that we have reason to believe, in fact
know, that this schedule was lifted, copied, and made available to —
we believe — to agents of the Republican campaign in August 1971.
I will discuss this matter later on.
Our heavy schedule was designed to reflect what we once referred
to as an Ohio State "4 yards and a cloud of dust" campaign. But the
fact was that our appetite exceeded our digestive abilities. A lack of
financial resources all the way through the primaries undercut our
strategy. Media and advertising budorets were slashed, staff reduced
in number and pay, no funds were made available to a few key primary
States.
FuNDRAisixG Problems axd Practices
I would point out in this regard, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee, that I have attached under exhibit No. 244-2 a number
of memos that I have been able to find in our files, a number of memo-
randums reflecting our payrolls and costs in the campaign and our
efforts to cut our si>ending at the time.
Senator Muskie. as you know, represents a State whose small popu-
lation and limited resources had neither produced nor required great
financial commitments in his political campaigns. It was, therefore.
4647
necessary to seek funds from people throughout the country. It may
be difficuh for anyone who has not campaigned for national office
or who has not been intimately associated with such a campaign to
understand the staggering financial requirements involved. Money is
needed for a central staff ; for communicating with potential supporters
and advisers; for organizations in each State; for polling; for televi-
sion, radio, and newspaper promotion ; and for travel not only by the
Senator but by his staff and by his supporters. Unless a candidate is
personally wealthy — and Senator Muskie is not — or unless he has
already developed a corps of wealthy supporters willing to back his
campaign— and Senator Muskie did not — he must devote an outrage-
ous part of his time to appealing to people for money.
The concern about fundraising having to do with the susceptibility
of a candidate to the special interests of donors, is legitimate. There
is always the danger of a quid-pro-quo relationship, involving favorit-
ism for money. In the Muskie campaign, no promises or commitments
were ever made in return for contributions.
Senator Muskie's integrity was ])roof against such pressure. Yet all
his integrity could not protect him from the demands on his time,
interest and concentration which fundraising represented. Let me be
specific. When he might have been working out policy positions on the
issues before the country or develoj^ing contacts with political leaders
or addressing opinionmaking audiences, his advisers often found it
necessary to scliedule him at functions which primary purpose was to
persuade well-to-do people thaJt they should contribute to his campaign.
Other ])eople — staff members like me or outside supporters — raised
some of the money required. But much of it — and I emphasize that^ —
Avas simply unavailable until there w^as eyeball-to-eyeball contact with
the candidate — until there was what President Johnson used to call a
"pressing of the flesh."
Campaign Financing
On an overall basis, we raised approximately $2.2 million in 1971
and expended virtually all of it. We raised just under $3 million from
Januaiy 1, 1972, to the effective date of the new law on April 7, 1972,
and again expended vii'tually all of that. Except for the initial few
months of the campaign we w^ere always in the hole. We never had
enough money to pay our obligations on a current basis.
I have attached to my statement as exhibit No. 244-3 a month-by-
month breakdown which shows receipts and expenditures supple-
mented by an analysis of accounts receivable and payable. Tliis shows
our deficit position month by month. As J said, we were always in the
hole and faced with the problem of reducing payroll, media and/or
other campaign expenses.
During the campaign, much publicity was given to the fact that we
were required by lack of funds, to slash our staff and to impose pay
cuts on the staff. In mid-1971, for example, when we appeared to be
riding high we experienced an economic cininch. I was forced to lay
off 10 of our staff people and impose salary cuts on between 10 to 15
others. Later in the fall of 1971, our operation geared up again and
reached a peak around February 1972, when we had approximately
125 salaried employees, paid consultants or weekly wage employees.
4648
At the end of February 1972, we cut 14 people from the staff and
made pay cuts to 5 people, and this was just on the threshold of the
major primaries we were about to enter. Then on March 15, the day
after the Florida primary, we cut 29 people from the staff ajid made
other pay cuts. On March 31, 1972, we simply did not pay most of the
people except for 33 of the lower paid staff. As to the 33 who were paid
at all, 23 received pay cuts. More detailed information is shown in
exhibit No. 244-4 breaking down exactly what did occur and what
period of time.
After the first few primaries, our finances were in such poor shape
that we had virtually no money to expend in a number of critical
primaries. This may sound astoundinof to you but we put no money
from the national campai<rn into the Illinois primary. In the critical
IMassachusetts and Pennsylvania primaries, which were the last before
the Senator withdrew from active campaigning in the primaries, we
put only $18,000 into Massachusetts and less than $20,000 into Pennsyl-
vania from the national headquarters.
Let me address myself to certain questions which have been raised
in staff interviews or prior testimony.
FiXAXCE Orgaxization
First, our fundraising campaign had no rigid structure. There was
no finance committee to elect ^luskie President. "We operated on a
rather informal ad hoc basis welcoming the fundraising assistance
of anyone who indicated a desire to perform that chore. I might tell
you, in response to some of the questions asked us in our staff inter-
views, who our chairman and vice chairman were, I can tell you
one we did not have — a formal chairman. Anyone who wanted to
participate in fundraising in any serious way I made a vice chairman.
Senator Baker. That is the usual role for vice chairman?
Mr. Berxhard. Senator Baker, I can tell you I used to feel very
much like that story President Johnson used to tell about the foot-
ball team that was losing. They had the ball down on the other team's
10-yard line right at the end of the game, and the coach said — called
them in and said — "Give the ball to Hardhead, the fullback."' The
first play the quarterback ran it himself and was thrown back 5 yards,
and then the coach got mad and sent in another play. The quarter-
back didn't give it to the fullback, it was an end-around, and he got
thrown for a loss. The coach got furious and called the quarterback
in and he said. ''"When T said give the ball to Hardhead T meant give
it to Hardhead. T^Hiy didn't you give the ball to Hardliead?" The
quarterback said "Because Hardhead doesn't want the ball." and that
was the problem we had with finance.
Senator Ervix. Just one moment. I think a Vice President and a
vice chairman, and things like that — I remember, and this does not
happen to my vice chairman because I predict for him a srreat future
as well as a ffreat present, but when Thomas ^Marshall was elected as the
Vice President and "Woodrow "Wilson as President, he made a state-
ment to the effect : "Once there were two brothers, one of them went to
sea and the other one was elected Vice President, and neither one of
them was ever heard from again." [Laughter.]
4649
Mr. Berniiard. The story of our finance organization. If I had to,
in any event, single out the one individual who did more to help
us, both with contributions and with enlisting the support of others,
that person would be Arnold Picker, for which eft'ort he earned
the No. 1 spot on the White House "Enemies" list. However, he was
not a finance chairman in any formal sense. Our fundraising effort
in\'olved many techniques — from a direct mail campaign, which proved
relatively successful, to direct appeals at dinners, receptions, and so
on, and I have tried to give you a breakdown in my exhibits of the
direct mail and other information.
A report on the results of the direct mail campaign, a list of proposed
fundraising affairs and the results of some are included in exhibit
No. 244-5.
Now, w^e maintained records which I have here, of all contributions
coming into the campaign headquarters from January 1, 1971, through
a daily ledger and those ledgers have been available to the committee
since June of 1973.
Practices and Committees
In an effort to assure that our fundraising effort complied with the
existing law, we disseminated a number of memos setting guidelines
for fundraisers, and I have attached those guidelines as exhibit
No. 244—6. Because I wanted my own view of the law to be reviewed by
an outside source, I sent to Mr. Mortimer Caplin, former Commissioner
of the IRS, a memo setting forth guidelines and asked for his opinion,
which I received, approving the fundraising guidelines and I have
attached that letter as exhibit No. 244—7. We had many committees. I
don't know how many exactly, but there were well over 200. Some of
these committees were created exclusively for gift tax purposes. Many
others were operating committees, raising funds and providing funds
in primaries or convention States. We have made available to the staff
of the committee a list of all of our committees.
Confidentiality
The question of the acceptance of anonymous or confidential con-
tributions has come up in the course of these hearings. Prior to April 7.
1972, when the new Campaign Financing Disclosure Act became
effective, it was entirely lawful to maintain the anonymity of those who
did not wish to have their names identified with our campaign. A num-
ber of people who contributed funds to us requested and were given a
pledge of anonymity and confidentiality for understandable, largely
personal, reasons.
I would point out that these contributions were all logged in the
books as "anonvmous." We count $343,000 of such gifts from January
1971 to April 6,"^ 1972.
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, could I intcriiipt the witness at that
point. I won't take very long but we had a rather prolonged and ex-
tended conversation with ]\Ir. Stans about the philosophy involved in
the right to anonymity. Do you think that the right to anonymity
that existed pre-April 7 had any substanial effect on the willingness
or unwillingness of contributors to contribute?
4650
Mr. Bernhard. I think prior to April 7 it may have had an im-
pact, Senator Baker, on some people's willingness to contribute, and
I will tell you why. It was not a uniform practice. It was not a uni-
form law which was applicable to everyone, and here is the kind of
situation we had. One of our contributor in southern California
had his son kidnaped. This resulted in a number of the larger con-
tributors in southern California requesting anonymity for fear or be-
coming publicly identified. We had other situations where a husband
contributed to our campaign unbeknownst to his wife, who happened
to be supporting another candidate. Those things will have to be
worked out in advance in the future. We had other situations where
individuals were afraid that thev had never been in a political cam-
paign before and once they had gotten on the list as a major con-
tributor, everybody would ask them for money. There were many rea-
sons like this expressed to us. The concern was that since there was
a common practice of anonymity and since there were some people
who were talking about disclosures, others who were not, they were
fearful of being singled out and I should emphasize that many of our
contributors were deeply concerned about potential retribution from
the administration in power to their business interests and to their
involvements. Whether it was fanciful or a real concern it was there,
and I must say when the revelation of the "Enemies" list came out I
sure heard about our voluntary disclosure.
Senator Baker. May I say that I think this is an important area
that the committee will examine, and I Avon't prolong this inquiry at
this point, but when it comes to my regular turn I would like to press
it a little further and invite your thoughts to the balance of equities
between requirements for the desirability of anonymity versus the
requirement and desirability of full disclosure. It seems there are
valid and good arguments on both sides and I am not at peace with
my own mind as to how those equities could be balanced so rather than
pursue that now I will pursue it later.
Mr. Berxhard. I do have some thoughts on it and I would be glad
to pursue it.
Senator Baker. Thank you.
Mr. Berxhard. One other fact that you should know : because of
the constant leaking of information and the disappearance of materials
from our campaign, I became concerned that we could not, in good
faith, promise confidentiality if we could not keep that promise. I
therefore set up a system whereby checks or cash received under
promises of confidentiality would only be received in sealed envelopes,
put in my office, and then ffiven, still unopened, to an individual who
would deposit them in the bank. This assured that the depositor
would not know the names of the cash contributors, and that I would
not know exactly how much specific individuals who asked for confi-
dentiality had given. I am reasonably satisfied that this method
worked and I think it Avas the only oj^eration that I know of in the
campaign that didn't result in major leaks. There was no illegality
involved and the motives we have discussed and explained to us for
the request for anonvmity suggested no impropriety. We tried to be
careful not to accept contributions from people who might liave a
special interest or axe to grind. We had no power to coerce contribu-
tions and we did not try to invent such a power.
4651
Cash
Let me comment on the question of cash contributions. We received
cash contributions. I do not know, quite frankly, the total amount of
those contributions, although I have tried to piece them together over
the last week or so, since cash and checks were all listed as part of
contributions received under the same account column and that will
be reflected and is reflected in the book. My best estimate is that during
the year and a half of our campaign, we may have received in the
neighborhood of $150,000 in cash. I cannot prove that figure.
Quite frankly, cash contributions were discouraged. But when peo-
ple gave us cash, routine practice was to immediately deposit cash in
our checking accounts the day received, or if after banking hours, the
following day. As a result, your investigators can follow the trail of
expenditures of cash receipts, as well as of others, by examining our
books, and I understand that this has been done.
We maintained two safes at our campaign headquarters and kept
a small amount of cash in at least one of them. One safe, which was
in an office next to mine, was secured primarily because of the con-
tinuing leaks of campaign materials and the appearance of such infor-
mation in the press as well as the apparent theft and photocopying of
documents which, although never surfacing in the press, we had reason
to assume were in the hands of people who wished us ill. Small amounts
of cash, probably no more than $'2,000 at a time, were kept in that
safe. The purpose was to handle emergency and petty cash needs. All
other expenditures were made by check.
Stock
Let me make some very short observations in addition. I assure you
there were no funds expended for dirty tricks or espionage or any
like activity. The campaign was reflective of the candidate and I
knew — and we all knew — that he would not tolerate such activity.
We did receive some stock contributions. These contributions were all
recorded at the appreciated value of the stock. Stock contributions were
promptly sold and converted to income, and the entry on our books,
in each case, is the net proceeds to our committee — that is to say. the
selling price of the stock less commissions and transfer taxes. One of
our supporters obtained an opinion for himself on the proper treatment
of stock contributions. We followed it and I have attached that as
exhibit No. 244-8.
Sources
Xow, to the best of my information and belief but subject always to
surprise, we did not accept money from corporations, national banks,
or labor unions. Our instructions to our fundraisers made it clear that
no such contributions were to be received. We did return certain mon-
eys, which when they arrived, appeared to be drawn on the treasury
of a corporation, and some of those letters of return are attached as
exhibit No. 244-9.
Reform
I hope that many recommendations for reform of campaign financ-
ing will emerge from these hearings. If I had to choose the one reform
4652
which is most urgently needed, it would be the public financing of
campaigns, not because Ed Muskie ran out of money, but because he,
and Senator Humphrey, and Senator Jackson, and Senator McGovem,
and all the rest of them had to spend so much time just passing the hat.
Americans deserve candidates who have enough time to consider the
issues, enough funds to present their views to the voters, and to com-
pete equally on the merits — not men who make the best fundraisers,
because they appeal to pa? ticular interest groups, or because they are
in a position to put pressure on people with money.
Basic Influences on Campaign
Lest I be misunderstood, I know there were factors other than
money which had to do with the decline of the Muskie campaign. Let
me very briefly address some of these factors.
First, there was the proliferation of Democratic primaries. Senator
Muskie was ahead in the polls in 1971, but he was still regarded as
essentially a New Englander. We had to establish him as the choice
of Democrats in every region. We had hoped he would not have to
share the broad middle of the party with any other candidate. We
hoped his victories in the early primaries would discourage such com-
petition from entering the race. We also saw the possibility of taking
a commanding lead in the first few primaries. Perhaps it would have
been better to have taken another strategy more attuned to our finan-
cial ability. But that is hindsight, and I am not sure another tack
would have really served us better.
Second, was the polarization within the Democratic Party. The
so-called new politics wing of the party was embittered by the bloody
struggles of 1968 in the Chicago streets, was frustrated by Senator
Humphrey's nomination in 1968, and by what they regarded as the
continuing control of the party by the old guard. Traditional Demo-
crats, on the other hand, thought they had been betrayed or abandoned
by the new politics people in the fall of 1968, and that the election of
President Nixon resulted therefrom.
So the prevailing temper, as primary time arrived, was not accom-
modation but vindication, and these primaries became message laden.
Many Democrats were prepared to give no quarter. George Wallace's
slogan, "Send * * * a message" accurately reflected the mood. Many
Democrats saw the primaries as their moment to vent individual griev-
ances which they could best do by finding a single champion for their
greatest concern — to end the war, for strong defense, for civil rights,
busing — pro and con — jobs, inflation, personal security, the unrespon-
siveness of Government, and you know all the rest. A centrist candidate
was caught in the crossfire of these passions. Our coalition strategy
with the essential message "Send them a President" was engulfed.
What we learned in State after State was that the vast majority of
Democrats who had other champions for specific grievances none-
theless would name Senator Muskie as their second choice, but we
needed first place, not second place, votes. This phenomenon was shown
no more vividly than in the poll taken by Daniel Yankelovich As-
sociates as voters were leaving the election booths in Florida. It showed
Florida voters believed Senator Muskie was the only candidate for
President who could beat Richard Nixon.
4658
As I will point out later, some of the dirty tricks increased the
polarization and exacerbated our eflfoits at accommodation. The same
can be said of a third problem of the Muskie campaign, and that was
the squeeze in which we found ourselves, and the lack of base which
could help Senator ]Muskie survive that squeeze. When Senator Hum-
phrey entered the race beginning in Florida, it meant that Senator
Muskie would contest for the Democratic center with a man who had
developed intense loyalties within that center over 24 years in national
politics. Blacks. Jews, labor, farmers, the elderly, and many elected
officials had long felt Senator Humphrey to be their spokesman. They
had seen him almost close the gap in the final weeks of the 1968 cam-
paign and when he called on them once more in 1972, they responded.
A'\niile it is my belief that Senator Muskie was making inroads into
the Humphrey strength, some of the dirty tricks which were practiced,
particularly in Florida, went to undermine that support for Senator
Muskie.
Union Leader Incident
Let me not bypass the event that occurred in Xew Hampshire. Wil-
liam Loeb, publisher of the Manchester Union leader, whose stock and
trade is to personally attack people he dislikes of both parties, had
printed the famous Canuck letter and he published some loathsome
distortions about Senator Muskie's wife. A copy of the Canuck letter,
as well as a related "letter" surfacing during the general election cam-
paign and an explanatory news item are contained in exhibit No. 2-4-1—
10. I have attached that letter in my statement. Senator Muskie made
an emotional speech outside the L^nion Leader offices in Manchester.
After discussing the Canuck letter, the Senator turned to what some
members of this committee have quite accurately described as the
hatchet job on Mrs. Muskie. Now perhaps there are some men who
would not become outraged when their waves are maligned, but our
candidate was not one of them. He is a compassionate and feeling
human being, not a cold-blooded, insensate political animal. That is
exactly what attracted many of us to him in the first place and con-
vinced us he would be a great President.
iMPAcrr
I doubt that I will be accused of hyperbole to observe that it would
have been politically better had he not shown his feeling so openly.
But he did, and the incident was seized upon and magnified by the
press. From that point on, it took on a life of its own.
That was because Senator Muskie was the front-runner, which is a
risky status because the natural instinct in the press and among poli-
ticians and other people generally is to examine a front-runner under
a microscope. Faults and virtues are sometimes magnified. Because he
is a favorite, he is supposed to win big. So a mere victory, as Muskie
won in New Hampshire, was insufficient; he had to swamp the opposi-
tion to be seen as winning at all. And if he comes in fourth as he did
in Florida, it is not simply a redeemable setback, as it should have
been by his subsequent large victory in Illinois, it is a collapse, and a
win in Illinois only postponed the funeral. Consistent victory is de-
manded and where financial resources are thin, and when you have
4654
to spread them over many primaries, and when a half a dozen serious
candidates are competing for that vote, consistent victories are simply
hard to come by.
Dirty Tricks — Their Purpose
And so we get to the role of dirty tricks. There is one point, and it
may be the only point where I am in full agreement with the Com-
mittee To Re-Elect the President, with the White House, and probably
with the Republican National Committee. That point is that Senator
Muskie posed by far the most serious threat to the President's reelec-
tion of any of the Democratic candidates. I believed that then, and I
believe it now. So did Jeb Magruder. In a memo to Attorney General
Mitchell on July 28, 1971, he said :
The clear and present political danger is that Senator Muskie, the favorite in
the early primaries, will promenade through the primaries, come into the con-
vention with a clear majority and enormous momentum for November. That
would be bad news for us.
So it would appear to have been natural that he attracted the major-
ity of the Republican "dirty tricks." I say "natural" with some hesita-
tion because I am in full agreement with Frank Mankiewicz that there
was nothing natural, customary or even precedented about CREP's
1972 sabotage and espionage efforts, and I think this is a pretty accu-
rate quote, and I remember ISIuskie saying it to me at a very early
stage :
I do not want you or anybody connected with our campaign to do anything in
the primaries which is inconsistent with winning in the general election and with
reconciling the Democratic Party.
We all interpreted that as a clear mandate that there would be noth-
ing of an underhanded, duplicitas, or scurrilous nature directed
against any of our competitors. I think it a fundamental political
truth that the campaign reflects the candidate and those of us working
for the Senator knew he would never tolerate such activities. Senator
Baker has stated on more than one occasion during these hearings
that if he had heard reports of unethical conduct in his campaign, he
would be on the phone immediately, demanding to know what the devil
was going on. Senator Muskie would have done the same — and the
prospect of having to respond to an outraged candidate is a powerful
deterrent.
I do not know an iota of evidence, one speck of evidence, that Sena-
tor ^Nluskie or his campaign operation engaged in anything that comes
in the category of dirty tricks, in any sense, in any manner. I might
also observe that we have be«n accused of not engaging even in clean
tricks.
I do not mean to suggest that Senator Muskie did not campaign
hard. He did. He attacked his opponents' positions on the issues, and
he tried to win over their supporters to his side. Ed INIuskie is a suc-
cessful and experienced political man and he knows that politics is a
body-contact sport. What he did not expect was that it would be a sport
where he and his Democratic competitors would play by certain ele-
mentary rules, while outsiders to the primaries would behave like cun-
ning barbarians. Their lack of political ethics was matched only by
their fear of a fair contest, and by the money at their disposal.
The term "dirty tricks" does not do justice to the slimy deceptions
that characterized the CREP campaign. "Dirty tricks" suggests that
4655
sort of cleverness we associate with today's Halloween pranks.
In fact, there was nothing very clever about it. Anybody could come
up with a Canuck letter, or the villification of Senators Jackson and
Humphrey and Governor Wallace which was made to appear the work
of the Muskie campaign. It did not take political genius to accomplish
those things. It took, as I have suggested, a certain low cunning and
a lot of money.
Basic Groundrules
Let me turn now to specific dirty tricks and try to describe their
effect on our campaign. A few of the perpetrators of these have been
repentant; others have not. I am not so much concerned about their
repentance as I am about what they did to pervert and distort the
1972 campaign, and about the long-term consequences for America if
their attitude toward politics prevails — that winning justifies any-
thing. When it leads our children to cheat to win the soapbox derby,
that is bad enough. But when it leads ostensibly mature citizens to
cheat an entire citizenry in choosing its Chief Executive, that is
frightening.
It is not always a simple matter, as the committee has discovered,
to make precise philosophic distinctions between rough but fair poli-
tics and rough unfair politics. Sometimes the differences are matters
of degree. Heckling a speaker is a traditional part of British politics,
and it is occasionallv practiced here in a way I would not condemn.
But systematic heckling — intended either to drown out the speaker
altogether or to make it impossible for him to convev his thoughts and
opinions to an audience — is profoundly undemocratic. I would always
have like to know^ what the opposition was doing— and I would be
less than honest if I did not say that I would have listened to a defector
from anotlier campaign if he appeared before me to tell me what
he knew of that campaign's strategy — but I would not have planted
an agent in that campaign whose job it was to steal documents and
make them available to me and to the press.
It is fair to tell voters that your opponent's record is proof that
he would not do much for them if elected.
It is fair to circulate bona fide documentation of your opponent's
record in an effort to turn the voters against him.
, It is not fair to deceive those voters with signs and bumper stickers
that appear to be but are not sponsored by your opponent, and which
carrv messaflfes that are certain to turn the voters asrainst him.
It is not fair to harass the voters with after-midnight canvassing
calls which are alleged to be made in your opponent's behalf.
It is not fair to plant a Iving letter in the local newspapers, reporting
that vour opponent has uttered racist epithets.
It is not fair to publish a scurrilous "factsheet" that shockingly
misrepresents a candidate's career, family, and beliefs.
It is not fair to put a telephone tap on your opponent's advisers.
It is fair to trv to place your opponent in a position that makes
him most vulnerable to defeat, but not through techniques I have just
described.
It is fair to play up your own virtues, and ventilate your opponent's
defects. But it is not fair to try to Avin an election by the kind of
fraud and deception that was the hallmark of the 1972 campaign.
4656
I've used the word "opponent" in these remarks in a spex?ial sense.
The object of the frauds and deceptions which occurred in the 1972
primaries was usually Senator Muskie. The common perpetrators of
the frauds and exceptions were not his opponents in the primaries,
but people in the Republican Party who so feared his nomination by
the Democrats that they intervened to prevent that event by foul
means as well as fair. It was their purpose to hold him up to ridicule ;
to estrange him, not only from his supporters, but from other Demo-
cratic candidates and their supporters ; to create suspicion and turmoil
in his staff; to establish that his ability to manage a national operation
was suspect; to divert his energies, and those of his staff, from the
task of pursuing the nomination to the desperate w^ork of limiting the
damage they had caused. They feared his name on the ballot in No-
vember 1972 and so they went after him a year before. As far back
as March 24, 1971, Pat Buchanan wrote to President Nixon as follows :
And if Mr. Muskie is not cut and bleeding before he goes into New Hampshire,
he will very likely do massively well there, building up irresistible momentum
for the nomination. This scenario is not in our interest — as Muskie today is a
figure ideally situated to unite the warring faction of his party, and if they are
united that is bad news for us.
I would point out that this was a period in time wdien Senator
Muskie was leading President Nixon in the national Harris Poll 47
percent to 39 percent with Governor George Wallace included in the
poll. With Governor Wallace excluded. Senator Muskie was leading
President Nixon head-on-head, 48 i^ercent to 42 percent in February
and 50 percent to 44 percent in April 1971.
Whittier College Incident
I will describe some of the attempts to leave Senator Muskie "cut
and bleeding." Let's begin with an early Segretti effort on November
8, 1971, at Whittier College in California — the President's alma mater.
Wlien I arrived at Wliittier College, everything was tranquil.
Just short of an hour before the Senator arrived to speak, great num-
bers of individuals, mostly black and Mexican-American, arrived
armed with placards. The pickets took their positions along the entire
walk leading from the street to the auditorium. There was such signs
as, "Would you take a Chicano as a running mate?" Also, "Muskie is
a racist pig." There was some inconsistent signs, one reading "Muskie
supports draft dodgers," and another, "Muskie is against amnesty."
Then there were many signs dealing with gay liberation.
The Senator's speech was well received. Then the questions came.
Individuals kept interrupting the Senator when he tried to answer
questions and all the questions seemed to deal Avith gay liberation, a
Chicano or black running mate or abortion.
A copy of the list of questions distributed by Mr. Segretti's opera-
tive is contained in exhibit 244-11 [previously entered as committee
exhibit No, 201 and appears in Book 10, p. 4270].
Senator Muskie, I think, handled all of this with £rre,at equanimity,
which apparently was an irritant to Mr. Dwight Chapin, who sub-
sequently sent Mr. Segretti a news report stating that "Big Ed proved
he could keep his cool," to which Mr. Chapin penned "let's prove he
can't."
4657
\ A copy of the President's news summary with Mr. Chapin's com-
: plaint that Segretti had "missed the boat" is contained in exhibit No.
244-12 [previously entered as committee exhibit No. 202 and appears
inBooklO, p. 4271].
That same weekend, I believe on November 7, Senator Muskie went
to speak at a Mexican-American restaurant in Los Angeles. AVlien he
went in, there were neither pickets nor other disruption. When he came
out, there were organized pickets, and in addition, television cameras
which were not a part of the traveling media. The pickets were
boisterous, shouting at the Senator and then, in an orchestrated move,
they started throwing eggs at Senator Muskie and at the cars which
were being used to take him to his next stop.
i The question might be asked and asked legitimately, what eifect did
this variety of planned chaos have on the campaign and its strategy?
The effect on his immediate audience was to prevent them from ex-
changing views. Beyond that, it disrupted our strategy. We had deter-
mined previously that the Senator was best at confrontation situations
and at questions and answei-s. But if we were going to get into a situa-
tion where questions on abortion, amnesty, legalization of marihuana,
and gay liberation were clearly planted, and the questioners were or-
ganized to drown out all other questions, that strategy would have to
be abandoned. Egg-throwing and the like would also create the image
of a tumultuous, disorganized campaign, possibly leading to violence.
The Purloined Papers
Testimony has already been given to this committee regarding the
stealing of documents going between me and Senator Muskie on the
Hill during the period August 1971 through April 1972. Those in-
volved were "Fat Jack" Buckley, Elmer Wyatt, and Thomas Gregory.
I There may have been others, but I do not know their names. They had
been planted in our campaign by the Committee To Re-Elect the Presi-
dent.
There are specific instances where inside jobs, whether performed by
Buckley, Wyatt, Gregory, or some other Re])ublican plant, disrupted
staff planning and hurt the Senator's position among groups whose
support he desperately needed.
Suggested Property Tax Hearing
Stolen letters went into a report of Evans and Novak dealing with
1 a staff-suggested property tax hearing in California. Some of the staff
had recommended to me that the Senator participate in hearings on the
problem, on the theory that it would be helpful in the campaign. Since
he would be in California on December 20 and 21, 1971, the suggestion
was that it could be woi-ked out simultaneously. Robert Novak printed
: a critical article on using property tax hearings as part of the cam-
paign. I have attached that article as exhibit No. 244-13.
This article came as a surprise to Senator Muskie, who called me and
asked what it was all about. He had never seen the memos, and I had
not made a personal recommendation. I called Mr. Novak. He said a
memo on the subject was sent to him in a plain brown envelope. Again,
this undermined the character of the campaign. It made Senator
Muskie appear unscrupulously opportunistic. I received many calls
21-5J-d O - 74 - pt. U
4658
criticiziiifr this purported misuse of Government funds as part of a
political campaign. I heard about it not only immediately after the
article came out, but subsequently in New Hampshire and in Florida.
These may seem rather isolated acts of disruption. In fact, they were
part of a long train of sabotage commencing in December 1970, when
the first break-in occurred.
I was still in private practice, but I was doing a good deal of work
with the Muskie Election Committee. I had a number of files in my law
office relating to the effort being undertaken to assist the Senator in
deciding whether to seek the nomination. My law office was broken into,
and my files ransacked. A number of Muskie-related files were found
in the Xerox room and there were a substantial number of unrecorded
Xerox charges on our machine. This matter was reported to the Metro-
politan Police. It was reported to your committee's staff several
months ago, and you may have uncovered information to which I am
not privy.
In addition to what you know about the work of "Fat Jack" Buckley,
Thomas Gregory, and Elmer AVyatt, there were other specific instances
of surveillance or infiltration or attempted infiltration. One involved
a young woman named Diane Moore, a 24-year-old researcher for the
Republican National Committee who contributed $25 to our campaign
and indicated in a penned note she would contribute more after Christ-
mas. Things were a little tight then. She appended a note in addition
to her contribution offering advice on tactics to turn President NixoU;
out of office. ;
Fortunately, the press learned of this attempt at infiltration before
we did. Had they not done so and revealed it, we might very well have
taken up her offer as a volunteer. Her superior at the Kepublican Na-
tional Committee, Robert Chase, when confronted by a phone call from
us, replied, "I just donY want to talk about it."
A copy of a New York Times article recounting the Diane Moore
affair more fully is exhibit No. 244—14.
Another employee of the Republican National Committee, John
Lofton, editor of ]Monday, was caught snooping around at a private
weekend meeting of INIuskie supporters in Kennebunkport, Maine. This
caused turmoil, and I think that is an understatement, at the weekend
meeting. It raised questions as to why the Republicans had involved
themselves directly in a Muskie meeting. Although John Lofton j
worked for the Republican National Committee rather than CREP, a,
A^'ery few days after the meeting, ]Mr. Strachan sent INIr. Dean a list of
the "fat cats" in attendance for use in the political enemies project.
A copy of Mr. Strachan's memo and the attached fat cat list is
attached as exhibit No. 241—15 [previously entered as committee exhibit
No. 52, and appears in Book 4, p. 1700] ,
Of far greater significance and deep consternation was the lifting
and photocopying of the major campaign advance and scheduling pro-
posals for the fall and winter of 1971 and 1972. This material had been
completed in August 1971 and because it was clearly and unequivocally
the most vital document we had put together, only two copies were
made. Within a few days after its production, a copv disappeared from
the desk of Eliot Cutler, the Senator's chief scheduler. Now. with some
reservations and in the interest of trying to give you the full import
of this particular document, I have attached it as exhibit No. 244-16.
4659
I think all of you who are actively involved in politics will get some
'idea of the detail and import of that particular document.
, ' We advised your staff of the removal of this document because we
had found, as I indicated, that it was found in the campaign's Xerox
machine; the staples had been removed, and we do not know more
about who might have taken it. But what is important about this docu-
ment is that it was reflective of our entire political strateg}'. It stated
where the Senator was going, for what purposes; what States or con-
ventions we might choose to consider lightly. It made possible the
focus of disruptive attention on the planned activities.
It created suspicion as to whether we had a spy among our own
staff and a number of days were dissipated in tiying to ascertain what
had happened. Beyond all that, it left me with the following questions :
Wliohadit?
Which of our Democratic opponents had it or might have use
of it?
How could it be used?
How could we change some of our strategy to avoid being under-
cut by our competitors?
Would they use it to go to convention States where we were not
going or to enter the primary States we were not entering?
They were tough questions and we tried to make some adjustment
as a result of these questions, but could not possibly deviate too far
from a basic strategy of that depth.
That was not the only major theft. On two occasions, raw polling
data disappeared from the desk of Anna Navarro, our polling expert.
In the summer of 1971, the entire New Jersey poll Avas taken during
the night. In the winter of 1971, the entire New Hampshire poll was
I stolen during a period of 5 minutes when Anna had come up to
1 my office to tell me it Avas ready. ^Mien she went to get it, it was gone.
! That was not simply a poll of where we stood, but reflected specific
strengths and weaknesses in New Hampshire, which issues should
be emphasized and which not. It was a document of real value to
any opponent, and it would certainly have been of value to the
CREP if they were pursuing a program, as they appeared to have
been, of embarrassing Senator Muskie.
Our immediate result of the New Hampshire polling disappearance
was that we no longer held general staff meetings of a coordinated
nature to discuss polling results. If one wanted to see a poll after
that occurred, they had to come to my office or Anna Navarro's office
to see it. Again, I ask the same questions about the polling data :
\Vlio had it?
Who on my staff might be the thief ?
How deep was staff disloyalty?
T\niat use could be made of the information?
Could we do anything to counter it?
So much for stolen documents.
On to fraud, forgery, and political conniving.
You have in your files a memo to President Nixon from Patrick
Buchanan, dated June 9, 1971, which reads as follows:
Buchanan's view : Kennedy is keeping his options open — against the possi-
bility that RX may be so strong by summer 1972 that the nomination will not be
worth anything. In which event, he can stay out. However, at this point, he and
his people have obviously concluded RX can be beaten — and they are not about
4660
to sit this one out — risking spending eight years outside the inner circle of power i
of a President Humphrey or a President Muskie. If Kennedy believes the Demo- (
crats can win — as he quite apparently does now — he will go after the
nomination.
We had no desire to alienate Senator Ted Kennedy and the many j
Democrats who supported him. We believed many would support us. i
Some 7 weeks after Patrick Buchanan's memo, the following occurred j
on July 28, 1971. A Harris poll entitled : "51 Percent Say Ted Is T^nfit |
for "N^Hiite House" was distributed widely in an envelope which was i
an offset facsimile of Senator Muskie's stationery, bearing his name i
in the upper left-hand corner. I have attached that as exhibit No. ;
244-17.
This fraud was distributed to Democratic Members of the House
and Senate, Democratic Governors, and leading Democrats around
the country. I have enclosed a partial list of recipients in exhibit Xo.
244-18. The response to the receipt of this fraud was immediate.
Phone calls went to the Senator's office and my office criticizing us for
a "low blow" — an attempt to elevate ourselves at Senator Kennedy's
expense.
Great effort went into contacting Senators, Representatives, and
leading citizens alerting them that this was a fraud. A copy of a dis-
claimer letter sent out widely by Senator Muskie as part of this effort v
may be found in exhibit No. 244-19. But this matter was covered in I
the press. How were we to know that suspicion did not linger, to j
surface when other reprehensible matters -were distributed under our j
name? Senator Kennedy was gracious and understanding. Senator
Muskie wrote to the Postmaster General. The Postmaster General
wrote back. The matter was investigated, but the culprit was never
found. I have attached that exchange of correspondence as exhibit i
No. 244-20.
New Hampshire
Let me point out two additional factors affecting New Hampshire
and also related to Senator Kennedy. First, during the "week before
the New Hampshire primary, Dick Stewart, our press secretary, came
in to see me about a call he had received from the AP in Boston to
confirm the following: AP had received a phoned-in statement from
someone asserting he was Mr. Stewart's assistant, who gave the Muskie
Washington headquarters telephone number as a contact number, and
who then read AP the following statement :
Ted Kennedy has become an obstacle and an issue in the New Hampshire
primary. I challenge him to come to New Hampshire and once and for all tell
the people whether or not he is a candidate for President.
Dick was upset because he thought that ))erhaps someone in our cam-
paign had determined to do that without clearing the matter with him.
And these things do occasionally happen in a campaign. I told him
that it was preposterous and everything should be done to kill that
story. I cite it as the kind of disruption of staff activity which is
harmful. It diverted our senior staffs' attention from the primary
at a crucial time.
Second, of far greater significance were the literally hundreds, per-
haps thousands, of phone calls which were made in the Manchester
area of New Hampshire during the week to week and a half prior to
the primary. Callers identifying themselves as canvassers from the
4661
"Harlem for Muskie Committee" urged the citizens to vote for Muskie
because he would be "so good for the black man.'- These calls were being
made between 12 at night and 3 in the morning. They did not strike
me as advantageous. The black vote in New Hampshire may amount to
1 or 2 percent. But if it had amounted to 50 percent, it would still have
hurt us. No one is favorably disposed toward any candidate who has
people calling or appears to have people calling between 12 midnight
and 3 in the morning. These calls resulted in many calls to me indi\'id-
ually in Washington, D.C., complaining about our dumb campaign tac-
tics, and they also resulted in calls from our campaign coordinator
in New Hampshire, to see if there was any action I could take to stop
them. The only thing I could think of doing was to call McGovern
headquarters to tell tliem to cut it out. My recollection is that I spoke
to Frank Mankiewicz, the McGovern political director, since I had as-
sumed that the calls were McGovern-inspired. They denied that they
had anything to do with this and the calls continued.
The second part of the disruptive telephone strategy involved post-
midnight calls from people alleging that they were canvassers for Mus-
kie and asking how the people intended to vote. These calls apparently
went beyond Manchester. I was informed that the recipients of these
calls would sometimes receive three or four calls in rapid succession
on the same evening. The source of all of these phone calls has neA^er
been uncovered, but I think it soured many people toward our cam-
paign in New Hampshire.
Impact in New Hampshire
I have been asked by the committee to evaluate whether or not any
of this activity can be quantified in terms of harm. It is not easy, but
let me try. One measure is the comparison of the results of the primary
vote in the city of Nashua with those in the city of Manchester. Nashua
is in the southern part of New Hampshire, and has a relatively liberal
city newspaper and a liberal voting background. McCarthy, for ex-
ample, had run neck and neck with President Johnson in 1968 in
Nashua and ]SIcGovern had expected to do well in Nashua. Nashua was
also the home of his campaign manager, Joe Grandmaison. What hap-
pened? Muskie won in Nashua with a total vote percentage of 58 per-
cent. Thirty miles to the north of Nashua is the city of Manchester,
slightly more working class, a little more conservative. We expected a
larger margin for Muskie in Manchester than in Nashua. In 1968
President Johnson had beat McCarthy soundly in Manchester and sur-
rounding towns. Yet, Muskie received only 38 percent of the vote in
Manchester, a full 20 points lower than his showing in Nashua.
Another tool of evaluation is the impact in comparable working
class French-Canadian neighborhoods in the State of New Hampshire.
Let me be precise. McGovern won ward 14 in Manchester with 35 per-
cent of the vote, with Muskie running in that same ward 13 points
lower than his statewide total. That result startled the press, for ward
14 is a French-Canadian blue-collar ward which had gone heavily for
President Johnson in 1968.
Compare that with ward 7 in Nashua, composed of similar French-
Canadian working class Democrats as in Manchester's w-ard 14. In the
Nashua ward, Senator Muskie swamped McGovern bv a marerni of
well over 2 to 1, winning 66 percent of the vote to McGovern's 28 per-
4662
cent, a staggering 32 points higher than he had received in the same
kind of neighborhood in IManchester.
I am grateful to Mr. Lanny Davis, who served as the campaign's
national youth coordinator, for preparing this vote analysis to assist
me in my testimony.
Had Manchester returned the vote we had reasonably expected and
which we received throughout the rest of the State, it is certain that
Senator Muskie would have received more than 50 percent of the vote
in New Hampshire. And since the press had set a public standard of
50 percent. New Hampshire would have represented a major win
rather than what was written off as at best a marginal victory, and at
worst, a setback because it was his neighbor State.
Florida
The Florida primary was held on March 14, just a week after the
New Hampshire primary. Despite the fact that we had won in New
Hampshire and had won in the Arizona convention, our financial situa-
tion was bleak. I had already cut the Florida budget by 50 percent
from its first projection; and with the issue of busing on the ballot,
we knew we were in for a hard time. Gov. George Wallace was cam-
paigning hard against busing, the space industries were in trouble, and
there was the proliferation of candidates.
You have heard about many of the disruptive activities in Florida.
You have heard about the February 8, 1972, ad reading, "Muskie,
Why Won't You Consider a Jew as a' Vice President ?" Samples of the
copy used in this and other ads are reproduced in exhibit 244-21 [pre-
viously entered as committee exhibit No. 204 and appears in Book 10,
p. 4275].
This was run in a Miami Beach JeAvish newspaper, and fliers with
a similar message were distributed. i
We were aware of that. One that you may not have heard about is a
scurvy little flier which was shown to me in Miami Beach by a rabbi
after we had been discussing an individual member of his congrega-
tion who said he would never vote for a Polish-Catholic. The flier
read, "Eemember the Warsaw Ghetto." At the bottom in small letters
was written, "Vote Right on March 14."
The busing issue was critical in Florida. Posters were distributed
starting late in February intended to establish Muskie as a proponent
of massive busing. The 'posters read, "Help Muskie Support Busing
More Children Now," put out by the Mothers Backing Muskie Com-
mittee. We received immediate reports of concern, mostly from our
Tampa office. After we received the calls and I talked with our people
in Florida, it was agreed that wherever we could, we would try to
remove such posters, and I understand that some of the people in the
office did so. I also contacted other district managers seeking to as-
certain the extent of distribution. I was informed that pictures of
some of these ads appeared in newspapers, particularly in northern
and central Florida. My information is that these probusing state-
ments appeared in Jacksonville, Daytona, Orlando, Tampa, St. Peters-
burg, and the Clearwater area. The extent to which the Senator's
position was incorrectly stated made it difficult to try to clarify and
to explain his true position, which would have allowed local school
boards to retain options to achieve desegregation, rather than being
4663
denied that right through Federal legislation then proposed. I talked
with our media people about cutting new TV spots, but the time was
as short as the money.
You have also heard a good deal of testimony about the March 1
Segretti letter sent out on Citizens for Muskie stationery accusing
Senator Jackson and Senator Humphrey of sexual and drinking mis-
conduct. A copy of this forged letter is attached as exhibit 244-22
[previously entered as committee exhibit No. 206 and appears in Book
10, p. 4280]. The calculated effect of that letter was to antagonize ad-
mirers of Senators Humphrey and Jackson and I think fair-minded
Floridians in general. We did seek to inform the press immediately
that it was a fraud. Mr. Segretti has conceded he was responsible
for it, and that it was a damnable malicious lie. But its circulation
received wide coverage in the press, and, once again, our indignant
denials never caught up with the lie — and were perhaps even doubted
by some who heard them.
I gather you also are aware of the early March advertisement
placed by Mr. Segretti in a Florida newspaper implying that Senator
Muskie supported Commimist Cuba. A copy of one such ad, and a
translation, is attached as exhibit 244-23 [previously entered as com-
mittee exhibit No. 207 and appears in Book 10, p. 1281].
There were also fraudulent radio and new^spaper ads put out in
Miami on Spanish-language stations and in the Spanish language
press — again allegedly by the Muskie campaign — purporting to have
the Senator come out four-square for the Castro government. Others
inferred that native-born Americans are more loyal than immigrants
which was certainly not calculated to endear him to the Cuban- Amer-
ican community.
Some of the incidents that happened ; such as the pickets in front
of the Manger Hotel in Tampa in January of 1972, did have an
impact, both in undermining Muskie support among blacks and cre-
ating further division among the candidates ; as you will see, I brought
a batch of exhibits demonstrating that herein. Attached as exhibit No.
244-24 is a memorandum from Chapin ordering the use of such signs
at Muskie rallies.
The signs were of a racial nature depicting Muskie as antiblack.
The inference we gathered from these signs was that they came
from Humphrey headquarters and frankly from my standpoint that
made sense at the time because w^e knew Senator Humphrey had very
strong support among the blacks and we also felt we were making
inroads among his constituents. I loiow many other people in our
ctffice in Tampa thought the incident was an inspiration of the Jack-
son people, but it did go into the paper and it was particularly galling
to me personally because it came shortly after I and others had had
excellent meetings with black leaders in the Tampa area and had
received pledges of support and this was just a day or two before
the signs appeared.
T^t me focus your attention on one activity which was of an unusual
destructiveness. Upon two ■ occasions before the March 14 primary,
when rallies were being held for Governor Wallace in Tampa and
St. Petersburg, cards were placed on automobiles in a parking lot
and distributed widely to hundreds of people stating on one side, "If
you liked Hitler, you'll just love Wallace." On the other side, it read.
4664
"A vote for Wallace is a wasted vote, on March 14 cast your ballot for
Senator Edmund Muskie." A copy of this card was sent to Senator
Muskie and is attached as exhibit 244-25 [previously entered as com-
mittee exhibit No. 214 and appears in Book 10, p. 4292]. These particu-
lar cards caused a flurry of phone calls to me protesting essentially myj
stupidity in authorizing their issuance. I would not want to describel
before you some of the language that was used but you may have somel
idea. We explicitly disavowed these cards and I told the office to talk'
to the local papers in St. Petersburg and Tampa to assure them that
we were not responsible for them. These disavowals, as I recall quite
v.'ell and to my consternation, received little, if any. attention. I rec-
ommended that we get in touch with the local headquarters of both
Humphrey and Jackson to state our concern as to their possible cul-
pability. Knowing the depth of support George Wallace enjoyedj
in Florida, we continued to be concerned with the impact of this'
activity,
T^st you assume, and I hope you do not, that my comments are
totally partisan, I should bring up a matter which hounded us in at
least New Hampshire and Florida and that is the scurrilous and
totally unjustified attacks upon Senator Muskie by one Stewart Mott.
Mr. Mott financed a project early in 1972 consisting of various
printed documents, with hand-scrawled headlines written in red or
black ink, and I have attached some of those copies of those delights to
my statement as exhibit No. 244-26. To say they constituted bad taste
would enable me to exaggerate for the rest of my life and come out
even. It accused Muskie's father of being a draft dodger. It included
blatant falsehoods about Muskie's record and it was sent throughout
the primary States beginning in New Hampshire. Segments of the
larger pamphlets wei'e run as full page newspaper ads which Mott
financed. He even had the poor taste to send his diatribe to Mrs. Ste-
phen Muskie, the Senator's daughter-in-law. There was similar out-
rageous material dealing with disclosure of campaign finances which
he mailed to Senator Muskie's contributors — contributors whose ad-
dresses he was able to secure only because of the Senator's voluntary
disclosure of his finances.
I think it useless to refute each and everv allegation because I
would be here an even longer time. This material answered me toward
the staff of Senator McGovem, because it was our belief, it was my
belief, that Mr. Mott was a heavv contributor to McGovern. There-
fore, we assumed that this was either being done at the behest of Sen-
ator McGovern or with his or their knowledge. As the campaign
progressed, I called Frank MankieAvicz who swore he had nothing to
do with this material.
I should also note that the CREP dirty tricks department found
much favor in Mr. Mott's sfame and picked u]) on it. A Mott newspaper
ad berating Senator Muskie on the financial disclosure issue was re-
printed and distributed to those enterino: a Los Angeles Muskie fund-
raising affaii\ At the bottom of the reprint were typed the words :
Tlie Committee will look for your names as part of Muskie's Fat Cats. They
better be there.
We drew the natural conclusion that Mr. INIott was responsible 1
for this harassment, although we have since learned that this was a
4665
Segretti ploy. A copy of this handout, showing the additions of Mr.
Segretti's agents, is attached as exhibit 244—27 [previously entered as
committee exhibit No. 209 and appears in Book 10, p. 4284].
ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
I would like to turn now to electronic surveillance. During the course
of the primaries, an overriding issue was tliat of Vietnam. As you
know, Senator Muskie had become convinced that the war had to be
brought to a swift conclusion, but he was attacked for having altered
his position on the war. I am not concerned with the responsible attacks
on his change in position. What did become of concern were the con-
sistent leaks that were coming out regarding positions which were
being discussed within the staff and among advisers on the war issue.
We were never able to understand how it was that there was so much
conjecture in the press which seemed to relate to staff discussions on
the issue of Vietnam. It is only now that some of it makes sense. I
have learned that our chief foreign policy staffman in the campaign,
Anthony Lake, who had once worked for Mr. Kissinger at the ^^liite
House, had had his phone tapped. It was doubly disconcerting to learn
that Morton Halperin, who was a former national security aide and
was on our foreign policy task force, had had his phone tapped as
well. Both men were under such electronic surveillance after they
left the White House and were active in varying degrees with our
campaign.
The extent to which information thus obtained was used to muddy
Senator Muskie's position on Vietnam is uncertain. But I can remem-
ber discussing with the Senator the question of how it Avas that people
seemed to know what he was going to say before he said it. We now
know as a consequence of Mr. Halperin's civil suit that the FBI
made available summaries of the taps to H. E. Haldeman. Exhibit No.
244-28 contains copies of new stories concerning these taps. Only an
examination of the fruits of these taps might disclose the extent to
which information involving Senator Muskie was available, and/or
used for political purposes by the White House.
I would be remiss not to mention an incident which has long been
known in our campaign as "funny phones." It occurred on November 9
and 10, 1971, about the time the Senate Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution, of which Senator Muskie is chairman, was com-
pleting action on its bill. The key question was how the House would
handle the bill. Would the House bill be as strong as the Senate
bill which the White House vigorously oj^posed ? Would the House act
in time enougli for the bill to be finished in 1971 so that a conference
committee could meet prior to the time Senator Muskie might have to
be campaigning in the primaries ? This is what happened.
The phone in the subcommittee office would ring ; it would be picked
up, but no one was there — only the sound of another phone ringing.
Then someone would come on the phone, identify the office and say
that he or she didn't call us. In a 2-hour period, some of the offices
which answered and identified themselves were: The White House; the
Vice President's office ; Senator Cooper, who was ranking Republican
member of the Public Works Committee — several times; Congress-
»l
nil
4666
man Blatnik, Chairman of the House Public Works Committee; the
Zambian Embassy, the Latvian Embassy, and the Embassy of
Kuwait — plus others.
Exhibit No. 2-14-29, which I have attached, contains two memos
which M-ere prepared contemporaneously with the events. Leon Bill-
ings, staiT director of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution,
after being alerted to the peculiar performance of the telephones
in his office, had the telephone company into the office attempting to |
ascertain what might have happened, what might have occurred. The
telephone company answered that they were certain the re. had been
no tampering with tlie phones and equally adamant that there was no
way in which the incidents could have occurred. Mr. Billings has in
formed me that at the time the speculation, in jest, was that the White
House would go to any lengths to find out what Senator Muskie was
doing. Mr. Billings' memorandum is in exhibit No. 244-30. But there is
one certain fact. Immediately after the phone company came into the
office and claimed not to have found anything, no further incident
occurred.
I hesitate to bore you with more incidents, ISIr. Chairman, but ]
feel impelled to mention one more only because it reflected such gross
insensitivity to the national interest and to the individual victims.
We had been working for many months on the largest fundraising
of the campaign in Washington on April 17, 1972, at the Washingtonj
Hilton Hotel. We w^ere in dire financial need. I know you have already
heard testimony from Mr. Segretti and his cohorts about the hundreds
of pizzas and flowers w^hich they arranged to arrive collect at the^
dinner, and the anti-lNIuskie signs outside. But more important was
one nationally destructive act. Mr. Segretti invited a number, perhaps
a half dozen or more, Ambassadors from the African states with their
wives, in formal attire, to the dinner. It had been my intention during
the reception to spend my time introducing the Senator to a number
of the significant contributors who had come from various parts of
the country for this occasion. Instead, during the reception, I spent
my time personally apologizing to each of the Ambassadors who had
been invited and to their wives, seeking to make them comfortable
and seeking to indicate that, while it had been a mistake, they were
certainly welcome. It was an unsettling experience and I think showed
no concern for the individuals embarrassed, to say nothing of LLS.
foreign policy.
I am now down to what I would like to have considered as my
summary.
Summary
At the beginning of this long statement, for the length of which 1
apologize, I said I did not want to have anything I say interpreter
as a rationalization for our defeat. The primaries were hard fought
and there were tough competitoi-s. Nonetheless, I find INIr. Buchanan'^
quoting Theodore "\"\Tiite's appraisal that the sabotage of forged letters
and dirty tricks had the "weight of a feather" no more than a glib
and self-serving conclusion, particularly since Theodore A^Hiite's bool?
was written before these hearings got underway and prior to the
testimony of Mr. Segi-etti, Mr. Benz, ]Mr. Hunt, and others.
You, on this committee, will have to appraise the impact. I haven
tried to give my view of that impact on our campaign. In my judg
I
i 4667
, ment, the unceasing events to unhorse Senator Muskie took a toll.
They took a toll in the form of diverting our resources, changing our
schedules, altering our political approaches, and being thrown on the
defensive.
They generated suspicion and animosity between the staffs of Demo-
cratic contenders. Internally, and this is a matter of which I speak of
very personal knowledge and deep feeling, they resulted in demoraliz-
ing distrust, erroneous accusations by me of my own staff members
for what I believed were their indiscretions and even their treachery,
and I haven't had an opportunity to apologize to many of those on
the staff who were so accused. If I might, just take a moment to let
them know, I do apologize to them, I do so here and now. The sus-
picions impeded a coordinated effort because, not knowing whom one
could trust, fewer and fewer people were taken into the councils when
it came to making decisions. These events certainly helped to under-
mine the image of Senator Muskie by making him appear unable to
adequately manage a^staff' which had been made, themselves, to appear
as sievelike amateurs who couldn't keep a confidence. It also made
liim appear as a man who at times would not hesitate to take unfair
advantage of his opponents.
Last, these events did not advance our ability to survive financially.
Contributors raised questions with me about the loyalty of the staff
and its apparent indiscretions and fumbling. No contributor wanted
to see his money frittered away. So time and energy were consumed
'lot only in securing funds to campaign, but also in explaining de-
fensively our efforts to maintain security and efficiency.
There is a momentum in politics, and when it is with you, nothing
is wrong. As my secretary says when you are hot you are hot and
wlien you are not you are not. And when you are not, the momentum
begins to ebb, and everything goes wrong. If things were going wrong
for perfectly legitimate political reasons, our problems were magni-
fied by the efforts not of other Democrats but of members of the
Republican Party who had no place in the Democratic primaries at
all.
I would point out that there is nothing in the resolution establish-
ing your committee, Mr. Chairman, that says this conduct is repre-
hensive only if it has decisive significance. It speaks rather of
whether the object was "to disrupt, hinder, impede or sabotage" the
campaign. I ask whether anyone here can doubt that this was the
objectiA'e of the dirty tricks. If they were not successful, that's a
comment on the ineptitude of the perpetrators, not their moral fiber.
I am troubled by the moral viewpoint implicit in offering that line
of reasoning as a defense. The doctrine that the end justifies the
means is pernicious enough. The doctrine that the failure to attain
the end justifies — or at least excuses — the means is terrifying. The
means was best expressed in a memo of March 24, 1971, from Patrick
Buchanan to the President wherein he stated:
It is in our interest — and in the interest of the liberal Democratic challengers
for the nomination — to prevent Mr. Muskie's uninterrupted march to the nomi-
nation.
And he also said :
There is a danger in going after Muskie, making him the martyr and spokes-
man of the Democratic Party, and thus insuring his nomination and even en-
4668
hancing his chances of election. But the risk should be taken. If we don't do
It now, we shall have to play hurry up football in the 2 months before election—
and people tend to disbelieve political charges made in that kind of partisan
envix-onment.
Then he liad a very colorful sentence.
Who should we get to poke the sharp stick into his cage to bring Muskie
howling forth V More important, what kind of stick is more effective?
Tliose were the words of Mr. Buchanan to the President on April 19
1971. ^
A copy of one "sharp stick" for which Mr. Buchanan has admitted
personal responsibility is attached as exhibit 24-1-31 [previously en-
tered as committee exhibit No. 158 and appears in Book 10, p. 4055]
When this document appeared, we— like Frank Mankiewicz— assume<l
it to be the work of SteAvart Mott.
The fact of the matter is that these disruptive activities continued
to be directed against our campaign for months on end. If the insti-
gatoi-s did not believe they were accomplishing their objective, it is
difficult to understand why they persevered. They stopped only when
they concluded that Senator Muskie was beaten.
In a memorandum to John Mitchell and to H. R. Haldeman dated
April 12, 1972, from Patrick Buchanan and Ken Khachigian, there is
the following self-congratulatory note, which, if so much had not,
been done to sustain it, I would have written off as no more than anl
act of self-satisfied puffing. He said:
Our primary objective, to prevent Senator Muskie from sweeping the early'
primaries, locking up the convention in April and uniting the Democratic Party i
behind him for the fall, has been achieved. The likelihood— great three months,
ago— that the Democratic Convention could become a dignified coronation
ceremony for a centrist candidate who could lead a united party into the election
IS now remote.
I apologize for such a long statement. Mr. Chairman and members^
ot the committee, but I am now done.
Senator Ervix. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock,
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene
at 2 p.m., the same day.]
1
Afternoon Session, Wednesday, October 31, 1973
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order.
Counsel will interrogate the witness.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Chairman, for the minority today Mr. Michael
Madigan of our staff will question after myself. '
Mr. Bernhard, that was a full and complete statement this morning]
and I have very few questions. First, I would like to ask you, did yoii'i
ascertain whether there was a pattern of questions aiid picketingi
aimed at Senator Muskie in his different appearances tliroughout thei
country? '
Mr. Bernhard. Well, there was. Commencing sometime late in thel
fall of 1971, and continuing on through the Florida primary, there
was a barrage of questions all involving a very few issues, abortion,!
amnesty, marihuana, and gay liberation. We heard this place after
place after place, and I would like to say, Mr. I^nzner, I do not object}
people raising those questions, they are legitimate public issues. The
problem was that they seemed to be planned, the people who were
4669
raising tliem seemed to have the capability of drowning out all others
because their hands were always up or they were shouting, and they
made communication on issues, those issues as well as other issues,
most difficult.
Mr. Lenzner. We now know that from interviewing Roger Greaves
j,nd Mr. Segretti that funds from the Committee To Re-Elect were
used to pay some of the pickets and people who asked those questions,
ind I wonder if you could tell us whether, because of those questions
md picketing, and other incidents, the campaign had to modify its
strategy in terms of its public posture on either issues or the campaign
iuring that period.
Mr. Bernhard. We determined, Mr. Lenzner, very early in the cam-
paign, and I think, based in part on Senator Muskie's performance in
L9()8, that he had a unique capacity to handle hecklers and to display
:he fact that he was prepared to listen to those with whom he disagreed
3r who disagreed with him. We felt, therefore, that this seemed to be
I year where people did not want to listen to long speeches. There
ivas more a sense of participatory democracy, at least to the extent
hat people wanted to be heard and they wanted someone to listen to
md to I'espond to their grievances, not just what the person on the
^t;ind happened to be saying. So we decided fairly early, it was part of
lu* summer and early September strategy of 1971, that wherever pos-
^il)le we would cut speeches to the bone, and I mean 5 or 10 minutes,
ind leave the preponderant amount of time available for questions
md ansAvers. We thought this was a good way to communicate.
The fact, however, exemplified by the Whittier College experience
md by some others, was that that seemed impossible to achieve. It was
niI)ossible because Ave heard the same questions, people were not ask-
ing about defense spending and they wei-e not asking about Vietnam.
and they were not asking about problems of the responsiveness or un-
•esponsiveness of Government. What they were doing was raising
hese same four questions time and time again. So what we did do.
and I am sorry to be so long in responding to your question. Ave did
?hange that strategy and Ave decided Ave had better cut out these direct-
confrontation kind of things Avith question-and-ansAver periods and
reduce them to the absolute minimum, because they Avere not making
it possible for the Senator to get his positions on the issues across.
Mr. Lexzxer. I think you said before that in your OAvn analysis,
which you said had been Xeroxed by unknoAvn persons in the head-
quai'ters, that part of the theme of the campaign Avas to emphasize
Senator ]\Iuskie's centrist position and Ave now also knoAv, of course,
that Mr. Segretti Avas pui'suing etforts to raise questions on these other
issues, and that some of Mr. Buchanan's memos reflected an interest
in moving Senator Muskie aAvay from the centrist position.
Did you make any effort to ascertain from the other Democratic
headquartei's Avhether these pickets or questions had been planted by
Dther Democratic candidates, or did you suspect that they Avere?
[ Mr. Berxiiard. Well, as I said in my statement, I think Ave Avere
'naiA'e about politics in a Presidential primary campaign, so Ave
were aAvare that Ave were going to be hit with activities Avhich AA'Ould
be harmful and Avhich — in our opinion — might not be ethical but
there they Ave re. I Avill be very frank to say that I never assumed that
Ave AA^ere being attacked by anybody other than our Democratic com-
4670
petitors and I must say quite frankly that the extent to which vre had
the questions on abortion, on amnesty, on marihuana, on gay lib, foi
reasons which you already heard and for reasons w^hich I assume you
are already aware, we assumed that the preponderance of those were
comino; from Senator ]McGovern and Senator McGovern's staff and
it did not generate a warm feeling toward Senator McGovern or hi^
staff.
Mr. Lexzxer. Now, there has been testimony that a number of these
busing posters were distributed thi'oughout the State of Florida, and
that with this kind of literature and other kinds of literature that you
testified about, was the question of the extent of the distribution oi
literature a concern of yours?
Mr. Berxhard. You are getting the heart of my greatest concern,
\Vliat happened in Florida was that we knew about the ads in the Jew-
ish newspaper. We knew about the ads that Senator Muskie was favor-
ing the Castro government. We knew about the questions that were} '
being raised "Would you accept a black Vice President?" We knewl
about the probusing posters. The problem that we did not know, the!
problem that caused me all the concern, was how wide it was; howj
much effort did we have to expend to counter it ? Where should we ex-
pend that effort? Should we alter our media approach? Should we
take out differing newspaper ads ? Should we have people trying to re-:
spond to these positions? Should we try to issue news statements oni
behalf of Senator Muskie and beyond all the rest ? It was the question :!
Wliere was it started ? We were concerned to be perfectly blunt about;
it. about the problems, for example, about what the Jewish vote*
would be in southern Florida, where there is also a strong black vot^.j
We were concerned; how widely were those matters distributed in that
area ? For example, at one speech, where the Senator spoke to the stu-
dents at the University of Miami, the only questions that I recall being
asked time and time again is "Would you accept a Jewish Vice Presi-
dent?" Well, that hurt. When I refer, in my statement, to that small
scurvy little flier about the Warsaw ghetto, I did not know how wide-
spread that was and I did not know what to do about it. "\^nien we saw
the probusing posters, I got calls from Panama City, Tampa, from
Jacksonville, and from Orlando about it.
What do you do about it? How far were they and how many were
there? I have heard testimony there were only a few, I did not know
that and I had to go on the defensive to try to devise a new strategy
which I hoped would clarify the Senator's position, because these
Avere constituent elements we needed if we were to put together any
kind of good showing, and let me say. Mr. Lenzner, we did not'
believe we were going to win Florida but we hoped we would do
better than fourth and I think some of these activities helped to
establish us in the fourth position.
Mr. Lenzner. I take it you can expend a considerable amount of
energy and resources just to ascertain how widespread such literature
miffht be disseminated, and I take it also that you can expend a con-;
siderable amount of the same kind of resources trving to catch up with
the press-^if the press carries such — covers distribution of that litera-
ture, and that means you are on the defensive and not on affirmatively
for your campaign. Is that an accurate reflection of the effect? '
4671
\ Mr. Berniiard. I think it is. The problem was we were thrown on the
i defensive because of some of these matters that were raised and per-
; formed by Mr. Segretti.
As I say, I have said earlier before, I don't want to say we lost be-
cause of all of these incidents ; I think they were exacerbating prob-
lems. But we were faced in Florida with a critical problem, and the
critical problem was one of financing. I had already cut our budget
by 50 percent. Wlien I was called about the probusing posters I did
contact our media people, both in New York and in Florida, to see
whether we could get the money. Could we buy the time to try to
clarify the Senator's position on this issue? Well now that was a
diversion of our resources and it hurt because we didn't have the
resources to divert.
} Mr. Lenzner. Now, Mr. Bernhard, I would like to show you a letter
^from an individual by the name of Mr. Ficker that we had some sum-
mary testimony on this morning, and ask you if you can identify
that document. Have you seen that before? That is a copy of the
document.
Mr. Berniiard. Well, "My Friend Ficker" as he called himself in
Montgomery County when he was running, is someone I have never
met and I don't really care to meet. This particular document was
prevalent in the State of New Hampshire in the week or two before
the primary. It was distributed, in fact, to our headquarters in ]Man-
cliester, I saw it in Burlington when I was up there with the Sen-
ator, and I saw it in Nashua and so I am quite familiar with the
document.
Mr. Lexzxer. It is headed "ITnitM Democrats for Kennedy" [pre-
viously entered as committee exhibit No, 197 and appears in Book 10,
p. 4:^66] and its intent is very clear, to obtain write-in votes for Senator
K(Mmedy in the New Hampshire primary.
Mr. Bernhard. Quite honestly when I saw this, and I knew Sen-
ator Kennedy was not on the ballot ti.en, I thought it was a rather
clever effort to divert support for Senator Muskie to Senator Mc-
Govern, and I don't know what else I can say about it. It is unfor-
tunate that the distribution was made.
Mr. Lenzner. I think your last exhibit that you have appended
to your testimony, exhibit No. 244-81, is a pamphlet we also have had
l)rior testimony on. Citizens for a Liberal Alternative. That appar-
ently, Avas drafted by Mr. Buchanan and others, distributed to Mr.
Greaves, Mr. Segretti. Did you see that pamphlet in New Hampshire?
]Mr. Berniiard. I saw more of that particular matter than I did
■ of the Ficker distribution. That appeared in a number of different
places in New Hampshire and my understanding was, not under-
standing, firsthand knowledge, was that it was distributed in many
cities throughout New Hampshire.
Maybe to anticipate a question, it was our judgment, based on
the nature of the pamphlet, that it was a IVIcGovern staff contribution
I to trv to undermine us with the liberal support we were seeking,
and I had not recalled that this was a specific matter that I communi-
cated with Mr. ^Nlankiewicz about, but over the weekend trying to
i refresh my recollection T did call Mr. Mankiewicz and I remembered
. that I had, in fact, called him aliout this as well as the so-called
i Harlem for Citizens black phone calls.
4672 I
]Mr. Lenzner. Were you aware, by the way, during that period I
'of time tliat copies of that were phiced in Senator McGovern's ',
headquarters in New Hampshire, by an em})loyee of the Committee To 1
Re-Elect the President, apparent!}^ intending to make it appear that 1
they were distributing it ?
Mr. Berniiard. No. ;
Mr. Lenzxer. We also have had testimony, and you have testified, j
concerning the peo])le coming into Senator ]Muskie's headquarters j
offices here in Washington. We liave had testimony about Mr. i
Buckley, Mr. Wyatt, Mr. Gregory, and we haye also had testi- I
mony that you did not refer to — by some of ^Ir. Segretti's people, i
that they had infiltrators in your Florida campaign. In fact we have i
had testimony that one of your campaign fundraising dinners was {
called otf because the infiltrator leaked out the information that it was
going to take place.
I would like to show you a document which is a memorandum from
Mr. Magruder to Mr. Mitchell, Avhen he was Attorney Genei'al, dated
January 31, 1972,* which appears to contain information taken fix)m
the files of Senator Muskie's headquarters and also information from
mail that was sent to Senator Muskie.
Can you take the opportunity to look at that document? I think
that shows on that first page, after the coyer memo, that the commit-
tee liad obtained information that Senator Eagleton had invited
Senator Muskie to a speech ; is that not correct ?
Mr. Bernhard. That is cori*ect.
Mr. Lexzner. And are thei-e not also indications of information
concerning contributors of particular sums of money to Senator
Muskie's campaign ?
Mr. Bernhard. There are.
Mr. Lenzner. The second page, I think, has that in more detail.
Mr. Bernitard. Well, I see them. There are quite a number of them.
I don't know all the people named in there as having been contributors.
I can only say that maybe we will get into this a little later in re-
sponse to some rpiestions Senator Baker had earlier. It does raise some
problems in my mind, and explanations in my mind as to why some
of these people were concerned about anonymity because I must say
it comes somewhat as a surprise that, to find out names are being
sent to the Attorney General.
Mr. Lexzxer. You did testify that the information was being sent to,
and we hare had other testimony to corroborate that, various news-
paper ]-eporters and the Attorney General and others in the Commit-
tee To Re-Elect. AVhat was the imi^act of apparent leaks of such
information or dissemination of such information on your internal
operations and on your staff organization ?
Can you describe that in any detail ?
Mr. Berxhard. Let me go back to one point and then maybe gen-
eralize about it. You macle a statement about a fundraising dinner
that Avas canceled in Tampa be(*ause of a leak that came out from
the Tampa office about that dinnei'. It was frankly, it was a thousand-
dollar-a-plate dinner. My judgment is that we would have gone ahead
with that dinner had there not been a leak but I have to confess to you
that we had hoped to have 20 people there and my recollection was
♦Later entered as exhibit No. 246 in Book 12.
4673
only 9 appeared ready to show up for this at $1,000 apiece. I was
afraid once it became known we were having a dinner that that might
be an embarrassment to show a lack of support and so since it came
out, we canceled that dinner.
In terms of the general question you raise about the impact on the
staff, I don't know really how to describe it. There is no question in
my mind that as a result of these constant leaks of information, and
I was accused of it. Ave began to run something in the nature of
maybe of a police state for a while. We cut out general coordinative
staff meetings. Let me try to be pi'ecise about it. I usually tried to have
a meeting once a day and at a minimum once every other day to brief
the people on the staff, media, reporting, so-called boilerroom in-
telligence group. After everything started getting out and it was
getting out at an ever-accelerating pace I just felt I couldn't take a
chance on it. The result was that I began to tell people on the staff
only what was indispensable for them to function. There w^as much
resentment generated as a result of that because people felt they were
being excluded. They were not in the confidence of the campaign. They
spoke to me about it. I told them the reason why it was taking place.
The result of it was a certain demoralization in terms of the staff
activities. Why weren't they part of meetings^ Why didn't they go-
in to see Senator Muskie when we were having final recommendations
made ? And I must say that I found it disruptive and it was unpleasant,
because I didn't like the idea of having to say to people who had osten-
sibly committed themselves to Senator Muskie. "I don't know if I trust
you'' ; and I called people in, I don't know how many times, depending
on what the leak might have been or the story might have been, to talk
to them about discretion, to talk to them about holding their counsel,
about the dangers to the campaign, and finally taking steps to exclude
them.
It turns out that 99 percent of what I had done was wrongly directed,
and these i)eoi)le denied what I had accused them of. I couldn't prove
it. Due process didn't apply because there wasn't time to make it apply
and I had to exclude them from these kinds of determinations and it
hurt.
Mr. Lexzner. You have also testified this morning, Mr. Bernhard,
that the campaign spent approximately $18,000 for your Massachu-
setts primary. I think your charts show^ that the Illinois primary,
which at least Senator Muskie won, was a totally self-funding opera-
tion. Our chart shows over $100,000 expended on the activities you
have described earlier. Would you consider somewhat over $100,000
a significant amount, if your goal is to affect the opposite party's
primary operations in a campaign?
Mv. Berxhard. I am not clear on what the $100,000 was that you
are talking about.
Mr. Lexzner. The $100,000 reflected the cumulative operations out-
lined in the lower portion of the chart, except for the so-called Liddy
operation, which cost $250,000, or at least, there has been some testi-
mony to his receiving that amount. Do you think that the expenditure
of over $100,000 is a significant amount, if your goal is to affect the
outcome on these kinds of activities ?
Mr. Berxhard. ^'ou know, if I had had $100,000, I do not think I
would have used it that way, but it could have an enormous impact.
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11
4674
When I told you, when we were discussing this in executive session,
we, in fact, literally spent $18,000 for the entire primary in Massa-
chusetts and that includes money spent by people living in Massachu-
setts. When I state we spent $20,000 in Pennsylvania, that is all the
national put in, but Governor Shapp, who endorsed the Senator, was
asked if he wanted us to campaign to raise all the money and we put
not a penny from the national headquarters other than some staff help,
into the State of Illinois.
So if I had had $100,000, even in Massachusetts, where we were
unable to buy media time which we wanted, I think I would have
thought that was an effective expenditure. If I had had $100,000 on
the other side to do us in, it would have been about four times what
I had for a permanent fight.
Mr. Lenzner. Having experienced these kinds of incidents, par-
ticularly from your vantage point as campaign director, do you have
any recommendations or suggestions to this committee in terms of
possible legislation ?
Mr. Bernhard. I tried to put some together, Mr. Lenzner. It is not
easy for the committee to legislate in this area. In many I'espects, it is
a matter of degree. I would recall that in the past election, the Fair
Campaign Practices Committee stated that in nearly 20 years, it had
uncovered, and I am quoting now, "no campaign tactics comparable
in extent or potential damage to a free, self-governing society.'' So in
a sense, maybe you are being asked to legislate or dictate political
morality. And it is hard to draw those lines.
It is always a matter of degree. But, Mr. Chairman, you may recall
that when there was an argument made before the Su})reme Court and
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was faced with the arguments that it
was a matter of degree, he pointed out that the difference between
civilization and barbarism is a matter of degree. I think that is the
kind of problem you are confronting right now.
I think there must be hard rules to limiting individuals' conduct dur-
ing a campaign and there must be also sufficient flexibility for indi-
viduals to follow the dictates of their consciences as they participate in
the democratic ])rocess. In an ideal democracy, the exercise of indi-
vidual conscience would be wholly determinative of an individual's
course of conduct during a campaign. But as these hearings have amply
demonstrated, while we strive for the ideal, we fall short. So we need
to define some new guiding principles.
I remember under some questioning from Senator Baker, we saw one
young witness acknowledge that he had been willing to abdicate his
own conscience even to the point of committing periury to help secure
an election victory. AVe have seen others rationalize illesral conduct
by proclaiming that the alternative to Mr. Nixon Avas unthinkable.
We saw one witness assort that he was not even aware that it might
be unlawful to steal confidential documents from one candidate and
pass them on to the candidate's opponents. His rationale was that it
was a political campaign and these things are done in a political
cami:)aign.
So even though there were some who abdicated their consciences in
1972, T think many and probably most had their consciences serve them
in good cause. The challenge before the committee is to strike that kind
of a balance })etween the need for rules and the necessity that there be
flexibility. I know it is not easy.
4675
The logical starting place, and I will come to the specifics that I
would recommend, is to focus on those areas where the existing law has
been transgressed. Mr. Segretti and his operatives reported copious
incidents of transgression. In dealing with the situations where indi-
viduals have seen fit to ignore existing laws, the most concrete recom-
mendation I can offer is to tighten the enforcement and penalty pro-
visions of the law. I think it unconscionable that nothing was done as
far as Mr. Segretti's letter on Senator Muskie's stationery regarding
Senators Humphrey and Jackson. No action was taken for almost a
year. But let me go beyond that and talk about some specific
recommendations.
1. It nnist be made possible to investigate and punish campaign law
violators quickly and effectively. To this end, I would recommend that
there he established an indei:)endent campaign commission similar to
that proposed in Senate bill ?)72, but with meaningful investigative and
prosecutorial authority to prosecute more vigorously the existing laws
and the laws which the Congress may pass.
2. Existing penalties must be strengthened. I would recommend
that some provision be made similar to those which authorize citizens
to bring civil actions and receive $100 per day when their rights are
violated by unauthorized electronic surveillance. In the absence of
public financing contributors might be given a cause of action to
receive liquidated damages when they have been defrauded of their
money via proven illegal campaign practices.
3. There is currently a Federal Law, 18 U.S.C. 612. which requires
that campaign literature be signed. However, in the last election,
we saw time and time again that the law was circumvented or ignored
to such an extent that it was really meaningless. Now, the public, in
my judgment, has the right to know the true source of campaign litera--
ture and I recommend more strenuous disclosure provisions, which
would require the disclosure of the names of any individuals who
helped either to compose and/or pay for such literature.
4. I would recommend that the committee follow a precedent estab-
lished by Mississippi law which requires that those disseminating
political propaganda obtain the approval of the candidate for whom
they composed the material or note on the document that such ap-
proval was not obtained. This is the kind of thing that has been done
in the Fair Campaign Reform Act of 1971 as far as financing is
\?oncerned. I would extend that to political propaganda.
Finally, I Avould extend the existing law relating to literature in
18 F.S.C. 612 so that it would include some regulation of the use of
telephones.
Now, telephones require the opportunity and access to telephone
lines and I do not see why we cannot have the same kind of rules
apply so we do not have the Harlem for Muskie calls and the canvas-
sers after midnight. Maybe it will not stop it altogether, but there
should be a remedy and there is none at the present time.
This brings me to the infiltration of campaigns and the purloining of
confidential documents. We all know that breaking and entering and
stealing of documents is already unlawful. There are other prac-
tices, however, which are highly unethical and ought to be specifically
spelled out in the law, and I would like to address a few comments
to those.
4676
In the first place, it should be unlawful for an individual to serve
on the payrolls of competing campaigns simultaneously and pass con-
fidential information from one campaign to another. To prevent this
practice, I would recommend that the committee suggest legislation
to prohibit the joining of a campaign organization with the intent
to either disrupt operations or to pass on confidential information
by any individual and to prohibit the inducement of such conduct.
In addition, there should be legislation similar to that which pro-
tects trade secrets. The theft or unauthorized copying of campaign
documents, campaign stationery, and other materials not available for
public distribution should be expressly prohibited, cite United States
V. Bottone, 365 F. 2d 389 ( Second Cir. 1966 ) .
A final area is that of the misuse of government instrumentalities
to thwart and undermine the campaign efforts of rival candidates.
While I i-ecognize that the administration in power has a responsi-
bility to defend its programs and positions, any misuse of govern-
ment power should be prevented. One man's abuse of power may be
another man's legitimate exercise of it. It is often difficult to draw
clear boundaries between a valid user of these government organs,
which incidentally undercut a political opponent, and the wrongful
application of government authority strictly for the benefit of the
party in power.
I do not recommend that the committee undertake to render some
abstract moral judgments in this difficult area. Rather, I would ask
the committee to consider a plan w^iereby the public would be en-
abled to render judgments in government activities as they occur.
Somehow, the agencies of government must be compelled to disclose
their actions so the public can formulate timely judgments on activi-
ties such as the extended electronic surveillance of Morton Halperin
and Anthony Lake while they worked for Senator Muskie.
To this end, I recommend that the committee adopt a 2-pronged ap-
proach, and I must say this is an approach not of mine but one offered
by Senator Muskie during the campaign in 1971. I think it has great
substance.
First, he proposed an amendment to the Freedom of Information
Act of 1967 which would have created reforms within the regulatory
agencies. Among the reforms were :
{a) A prohibition against regulatory officials meeting alone with
interested parties unless a public record is kept and disclosed.
This w^ould have something to do with the willingness of those who
are regulated, for example, to make financial contributions and have
direct dealings with these agencies.
(6) A requirement that all communications to an agency be avail-
able to the public, with the exception of material like trade secrets
and classified documents.
And I have a recommendation on that in just a moment.
{c) A requirement that closed files be reviewed periodically to
remove and reveal data which does not warrant continued confiden-
tiality.
I might throw in and I am sure this committee is fully aware of the
Florida sunshine law where public officials are not allowed to meet at
all without the public having access. This does not go quite that far,
but it is an attempt to give the public the opportunity to make an
informal decision.
4677
The second recommendation I would make in the same regard is in
dealing with matters requiring confidentiality — like national security
documents. Senator Muskie proposed that an independent board be
established to oversee and declassify information which is presently
withheld from Congress and the public indefinitely. Under his proposal
in the "Truth in Government Act of 1971," S. 2965, a seven-member
board would be appointed by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate. Once empaneled, it would declassify materi-
als after 2 years, unless it was decided that they were too sensitive for
declassification, in which case they might remain classified for up to
12 years. Declassified material would be provided for public scrutiny.
Moreover, the board would be required to provide Congress with what-
ever materials were necessary for Congress to discharge fully and
properly all its constitutional duties. This would apply even to
classified documents.
I make those two recommendations because they have the advantage
of not calling for what I originally said was an abstract moral judg-
ment by this committee but they would provide the deterrent of effec-
tive public scrutiny in making information available regarding Gov-
ernment action.
]Mr. Lenzner, you asked me when we were talking if I had any
recommendations for financing. I do. I will make them very short.
In July of this year, you are aware, of course, that the Senate
passed S. 372, a bill which I believe would substantially improve the
existing system of financing Presidential elections. Unfortunately,
it seems to be tied up in the House, and while it does represent prog-
ress, in my judgment, it is essentially an interim solution. I believe
there is great distaste for private financing of elections among politi-
cians at large, among organized labor and obviously among the public,
because I saw a Gallup poll recently which said 65 percent of the
American people believe we should have public financing. But the
problem is we have six major bills on public financing pending in the
Congress. I tried to review those bills in preparation for this testi-
mony. They are complicated, and they are so much at odds : some deal
with primaries, some deal with general elections, some deal only with
Presidential elections, some deal with congressional elections. I think
my basic recommendation would be to find ways at this point to bring
those various proposals into harmony, to find some way to subsidize
general elections and maybe work out some matching system in the
primaries with a requirement that a person demonstrate that he is a
serious contender before he would receive any funds. Federal funds,
to spend in a State. I think we have to limit contributions. I don't
think the tax checkoff worked as well this past year as it might have
because of the physical position in which it was placed.
But the more difficult problem is to reconcile all these differences in
the bills that are now pending in the Senate. I would recommend tliat
the committee request some form of nonpartisan, bipartisan, organiza-
tion, if there is one that you can find with a reputation for great ob-
jectivity, to attempt to reconcile these existing proposals and formulate
a model public financing statute, one which I would hope would be in
effect bv the 1976 Presidential election. Because, you know, I think it
would be a tragedy to have held these effective hearings that you have
held, brought out what you have brought out, and end up with no
reform in the area of campaign financing.
4678
Lastly, just to the question of primaries, I know there are a number
of bills involvino: the primaries. They may be beyond the jurisdiction
of this committee.
I do not know whether we oupfht to have regjional primaries, national
primaries; T do not have that wisdom. T do believe, and T have a hope
that we will find some Avays that the States will end the concept of
winner take all and <ro to pivino; people dele<rates and representation at
the convention based on their percentaoe votes in the State, because
this does a number of thinirs. It is really more democi-atic and it avoids
the possibility of any one candidate havinir a superabundance of money
and, therefore, jjarnerino: a disproportionate share of votes contrary
to the public will.
Those are the best I can do, Mr. Lenzner.
Mr. Lkxznek. I appreciate those.
I did not quite understand, when you were discussin<r what areas
of activity miirht be prohibited, were you su.<r^estin<r the creation of
specific criminal statutes as yon have described some etl'ective deterrent
to such activities, or were you suofcrestinc: somethina; else ?
Mr. Bernhard. I was sug;o;estin^ a combination of civil and criminal
remedies. I think that the criminal remedy is a shot across the bow
and may generate some trepidation and fear on the part of the activists
who may be transsfressinc: the law. Civil remedies, however, would
be another deterrent and that is to make people idealize that it may
be cutting deep into their wallet if they violate the law.
I do not know, I have no way of knoAving what the rule providing
penalties on electronic surveillance, the liqnidated damage provision,
ha5 done, whether it has been a deterrent. But I think and I can
assure this committee that many of our contributors, when they began
to hear what happened, were talking to me about was there not any
kind of remedy available for recouping some of the money they had
ali-eady contributed to the campaign? I made it clear there was not.
So I am talking alx>ut a combination of both civil and criminal.
Mr. Lexzxer. There is, as you have noted, section 612 of the U.S.
Criminal Code, which is a misdemeanor. "Would yon also recommend
that that and other statutes might be enacted into felonies?
^Ir. Berntiard. I think something has to be done to bring people
up short, make them aware that this is i-eally serious business. I think
it Avas, in the concept of some of these people, a big joke, a big game,
a Halloween prank, Avith a penaltA* so meager it was not a deterrent.
^Ir. Lexzxer. Your testimony this morning reflected some consid-
erable concern over the distribution of lit^'rature prepared and funded
by ]Mr. ^fott. I belieA'e his name Avas on that. Hoav can this committee
or the Congress deal Avith the situation where a pei^son, Avith resources
of that natni-e, distributes literature that yon found, I think, un-
acceptable ?
Mr. Berx'hard. That is mild.
Mr. Lex'zx'er. That is a mild AvaA' of putting it.
]\rr. Berx'iiard. That is A'en- difficult. The problem is we seem to be
saddled — I don't mean it in an unfair Avay — with the SuUiran case
Avhich makes it necessaiy that the ]>ublic officials invoh-ed proA-e malice
before they can win a libel suit. But I am not at all sure Ave may not
Avant to dcA'elop some kinds of provisions Avhich. in a campaign, would
reinstitute the legitimate action for libel Avhen that kind of material
4679
is published. The only difference between Mr. Mott and some of the
Segretti activities, as I tried to think about it, is that he surfaced,
he pu.t his name on it. It was really the difference between maybe a
gutterenipe and a pack of sewer rats.
Mr. Lp:nzxer. The other question I liave is, do you recommend
any legislation affecting the use of resources or fvuids l)y one political
party to affect the outcome or influence the outcome of the opposite
party's primaries? Or do you think that is encompassed in specific
Mr. Bern HARD. Well, I don't know. Let me say what the problem
is. We have to l^e realistic. We are a democracy. If I were the party
in power, I would attempt to asseit to the best of my advantage all
that I had accomplished and all that I might accomplish. I would have
some reservations about telling the party in power, you cannot set up
a truth squad to answer Senator Muskie, or you can't send the Cabinet
out to speak in behalf of your programs, even in the course of a pri-
mary. I think, though, when money is used for the kind of deceitful
practices which are involved, I would prohibit that. I don't think
there is any excuse for that.
Mr. Lexzxer. I meant specifically the area of the kinds of testi-
mony that we have had of sending infiltrators into the campaigns, of
attempting to disrupt meetings or gatherings, or attempts to steal
documents or mail.
Mr. Berxhard. Well, I think it should be outlawed. I think if we
are going to find a way to restore a semblance of confidence in the
public affairs of this country, we are going to have to restore it by
preventing deceitful and treacherous and fraudulent activities so the
people can make a choice. My biggest problem with the 1972 and 1971
period is that I think the American people were deprived a choice.
I am not saying it is just because of these activities, but I am saying
that they certainly contributed to it.
Mr. Lexzxer. Thank you, Mr. Bernhard.
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Michael Madigan, w^ho is as-
sistant minority counsel, will examine the witness next, with your
agreement.
Mr. Madigax". Thank you.
Mr. Bernhard, if I might invite your attention for a moment to
the chart that has been introduced into evidence before this commit-
tee, with particular reference to the point on the chart which in-
dicates that Senator Muskie's lowest point of popularity during the
year 1971 was in September, 35 percent or so. and this was. according
to the chart, well before anv of those dirty trick activities were directed
against Senator Muskie. Would you not attribute this to the financing
and structural organization problems that you experienced during
1971?
Mr. Berxhard. I think they were a part of it. I think also that
there was a natural decline from the November election eve speech of
1970. We had anticipated a decline. There was no way that he could
keep up the level of support that was generated right after that, and
we had anticipated a decline. And frankly, during the period of the
spring of 1971, we knew or believed we were the frontrunners and we
thought that to come out even further would make us more vulnerable
to attack from many more different groups of people. We were trying
to run a quieter and less public campaign. So I think that was a major
4680
factor during the spring, and I think I have stated that publicly dur-
ing the course of the campaign.
Mr. Madigan. Do not your examples with regard to Massachusetts
and Pennsylvania illustrate that the predominant problem of the
Muskie cam])aign, -sVhich led to the Senator's withdrawal, was the lack
of financing?
Mr. Bernhard. Mr. Madigan, that was the culmination. We did
have, and I have not tried to mask the fact that we had finance prob-
lems all along. What finally led to the withdrawal from the primai-y
was a combination of circumstances w^iich I tried to indicate in my
earlier statement. I believe that by the time we had gotten to Massa-
chusetts and Pennsylvania, we had been so cut up, in Mr. Buchanan's
phrase, that we were bleeding and that it was difficult to get financing.
And it is certainly true that subsequent to April 25, we didn't have
any money to continue.
Mr. Madtgan. In discussing the dirty tricks section of your state-
ment, you indicated and criticized the systematic heckling, as you put
it, which included at one point the throwing of eggs at Senator Muskie.
You don't suggest, do you, that these heckling activities and this type
of violent conduct occurred anywhere near as much in Senator
Muskie's campaign as they did in the campaign of the President and
the Vice President?
Mr. Bernhard. I can't speak about what happened in the campaign
of the President and the Vice President. I can only really testify as
to what I perceived and what I know happened to us.
Mr. Madigan. Did you have any knowledge of or could you tell us
whether any State campaign headquarters of Senator Muskie was de-
stroyed by arsonists?
Mr. Bernhard. I don't know of any ; no.
Mr. Madigan. Could you tell us whether Senator Muskie or his
wife ever attended a dinner and Avere speaking when large masses of
demonstrators attempted to storm the building?
Mr. Bernhard. Oh, we had a few incidents where there was dis-
ruption when both the Senator and his wife Avere at dinners. I can't
speak to that with any precision, but I know that we had disruption,
I assure you of that.
Mr. Madigan. Now, you cite in your statement several examples of
memorandums written by Mr. Buchanan and you apparently attempt
to link those to the activities of some of the Segi-etti operatives. You
know of no evidence, I take it, that Mr. Buchanan either kneAv of,
approved of, or ordered any of these specific activities by Mr. Segretti
and his operatives.
Mr. Bernhard. Mr. Madigan, I am not sure about that. T under-
stood that Mr. Buchanan did have some meetings with some people,
Mr. Chapin and some others, sometime early in 1971. I don't know
that. I can only go back to what I believe. That is that when you set
the guidelines, you have set the policy for the kind of strategic you
intend to follow. And I have alwavs believed that a person is pre-
sumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts and
that they are his own acts if they counsel or advise or authorize or
encourage othere to perfomi those acts and if others perfonn them,
not in the manner or not in the way they an.ticii:)ated. they still are
a culpable party. I have no direct knowledge that Mr. Buchanan did
any of these, other than he attended this meeting.
4681
Mr. Madigan. If you were at a strategy meeting in which you coun-
seled that Senator Humplirey would be your main opponent," I assume
that you would not think it would necessarily follow that a distribu-
tion of a flier of a terrible nature ajjainst Senator Humphrey would
haA^e been the result of any sort of direction from you at that meeting,
would you?
Mr. Bern HARD. It would depend on what I said. If I said, let's get
Senator Humphrey, it is important that we undermine him, put a
stick in his cage and have him come out howling in some way, and it
was done in those tough terms and something occurred, I wouldn't
say that I had no culpability or no responsibility for the agents,
whether they did it in the manner that I had thought would be
appropriate.
Mr. Madigan. With respect to Mr. Mott's activities, could you
identify for the record the accountability project that Mr. Mott
distributed ?
I believe it is found in exhibit No. 244—26.
Mr. Bern HARD. Yes.
What would you like me to say about that ?
Mr. Madigan. Well, just for the record, to identify exhibit No.
244-26, it is the document you were speaking of when you spoke of
Mr. Mott's distribution?
Mr. Berniiard. It certainly is.
Mr. Madigan. Do you know Mr. Stewart Mott and do you know
whether he was a supporter of or large contributor to any particular
Presidential campaign during 1972?
Mr. Bernhard. Mr. Madigan, in my assumption, Mr. Mott had Ijeen
a contributor to Senator McGovern. I made no bones about it that
I had believed when this came out that this w\as being done by Mr.
Mott being an agent for the McGovern staff and the McGovern orga-
nization. I can't prove that is the case now. I don't know what Mr.
Mott would say about that.
I know that I have talked to Mr. Mankiewicz about it and he has
vehemently denied that fact. And at this point I would have to ac-
. cept his denial.
Mr. Madigan. In your statement, you made references to an inci-
dent occurring in Kennebunkport. Maine, involving a man named
Lofton. Were you present at that gathering ?
Mr. Bernhard. I was.
Mr. Madigan. Your statement, as I understood it, accused Mr.
Lofton of snooping at that gathering ?
Mr. Bernhard. It certainly did say that.
Mr. Madigan. Was that gathering held at a place called the Shaw-
I mut Inn?
Mr. Bernhard. It w^as.
Mr. Madigan. And did your campaign people rent the entire prem-
I ises of the Shawmut Inn ?
Mr. Bernhard. If we didn't rent the entire premises and I don't
I know the facts, I don't recall them, we rented darned near the whole
; Shawmut Inn. It isn't that large and we had a lot of folks up there.
Mr. Madigan. It is a public place, is it not?
i Mr. Bernhard. It certainly is.
:Mr. Madigan. With respect to :Mr. Lofton, did you have employees
attending that meeting by the names of Michelow and Buxton ?
4682
Mr. Berxhard. I assume Mr. MicheloAv was there. I don't know Mr.
Buxton. I don't know if he was there or not.
Mr. Madigan. Were you aware of, and I notice it was not inchided in
your statement, the physical assault of Mr. Lofton by some of your
people, pushing him down the hall and trying to throw him out of the
room ?
Mr. Berxhard. That is one of the grand fictions of 1971. I Avas there
during the whole time. Mr. Lofton attempted time and again to break
into i)rivate meeting rooms, to have — to accost individuals as they
came by the reception area, to demand their names, to demand their
addresses and find out what businesses they were involved in. He be-
came abusive, and we asked him to please depart. He would not depart
from the meeting, and we tried to remove him from that. There was
no physical violence beyond that. Mr. Lofton is a very good writer,
he is very imaginative, and he, I think, referred to that meeting as
some SS kind of operation against him, and I give him a lot of credit
for imagination.
Mr. MADirxAN^. Are you saying that it is not true that he was shoved
down a public hallway at that meeting ?
Mr. Berniiari). He was not shoved down a hallway, to the best of my
knowledge. He Avas sure urged to get out of there to the extent that he
was trying to interrogate our private guests. "We tried to prevent him
from doing that and, I think it was legitimate.
Let me say, Mr. Madigan, I still don't know what he was up there
for, except that he tried to get a list of people to submit them to the
White House to form the enemies list. I remember when Mr. Strachan
testified as I looked at it, when he was asked about the enemies list, he
said it had nothing to do with the enemies list, had nothing to do with
anything except they wanted to upgrade the "V^HIiite House social list
and wanted to exclude those people.
Mr. Madigan. He was a writer to the extent that he was a writer for
a Republican neAvspaper, was he not ?
Mr. Berxhard. He certainly was.
Mr. ]Madigax. Did you make any restrictions that the press would not
be alloAved in ?
Mr. Berxhard. Yes, it Avas a private meeting, no press.
Mr. MADIGAx^ Did you exclude the press f i-om the meeting ?
Mr. Berxhard. That is right.
Mr. Madigax'. You mentioned the press conferences. Do you feel that
a candidate for the Nation's highest office should be able to ansAver any
and all questions that a person at a press conference might Avant to ask?
Mr. Berx'hard. I do.
Mr. Madigax'. I thought I understood vou to object to certain ques-
tions that Avere asked at press conferences ?
Mr. Berxhard. No. I only object AA'hen there is a pattern almost in
the nature of a conspiratorial pattern Avhere there is such a droAvning
out, such a reiteration of the ?ame question, that it prcA^ents communica-
tion betAveen the candidate and the people at large. "\^niei-e those Avho
want to ask questions Avhich go bevond amnesty and abortion and
marihuana never have that opportunitA^ I recognize Ave are talking
about a fine line and fine degree. But I think a candidate should be
readv for anything. T think there is a ])roblem in a democracy AA-hen
people are preclucled from really engaginir in communication. That
is what I object to, and that is Avhat I objected to during the campaign.
4683
Mr. Madigax. I was a little unclear on }'our objection to the pickets.
Did you object to the pei'sons carrying signs regarding taking a
black Vice President or a Jewish Vice President?
Mr. Bernhard. That is legitimate. But I think they should have
been properly identified as to whom they were. I objected to the signs
in front of the ]SIanger ]Motor Inn in Tampa because they gave the
impression that that was Senator Humphrey or Senator Jackson. I
objected to the ads that were taken in the paper because it looked like
it was another competitor or nominee competitor. I think if you have
pickets, you should identify the sources of those pickets.
Mr. Madigan. You have no objection to the pickets, only the hiring
of them by various people.
Mr. Bernhard. I object to deceit and fraud in those pickets ; I object
to people giving the appearance of being one thing and representing
one candidate, and being someone else.
Mr. ]Madigax. Xow, with respect to the 1972 Presidential election,
and without in any way attempting to condone the activities that were
perpetrated by ]Mr. Segretti and his operatives, do I understand your
testimony before the committee to be that the victory which the Presi-
dent achieved, 49 out of 50 States, Avas due to the fraud that was
perpetrated by these dirty tricks?
INIr. Berxhard. I can't make that statement, Mr. Madigan. I don't
know wdiat w^ould have happened if we had had a different atmosphere
in the primaries. The President had a great deal of support. There was
a good deal of friction within the Democratic Party subsequent to the
convention. I believed before and I believe now that the country would
have seen a very different contest if Senator INIuskie had been the can-
didate. But I don't want to sit here and say that but for these activi-
ties, another man would have been President. I do think it had an im-
pact upon the campaign, but I can't quantify it.
Mr. Madigan. How Avould you compare the impact on the campaign
of the dirty tricks versus your campaign decisions to enter a large
number of primaries with inadequate financing and the financial dis-
closure issue, those types of things ?
Mr. Bernhard. At the time we made that decision, it seemed good.
As I said, I think our appetites were excessive. We knew we were
taking a high risk. We thought we could wi-ap it up in the first few
primaries, and we thought that by winning the first few, it would
create new sources of money and new momentum, and it would prob-
ably reduce the ultimate expenditure of money because we wouldn't
have to go through so many primaries.
In hindsight, I can look back and say, I wish we had targeted a few
primaries and done it that way. But we ran into these unexplainable
problems in New Hampshire and in Florida very early. Our momen-
tum was impeded. This affected our ability to raise funds, and it was
obviously ultimately, looking back, a strategic mistake because it
pinned so much on doing so well in the early primaries.
Mr. Madigan. I take it, then, Mr. Bernhard, that you disagree with
statements made by Senator Humphrey on the "Meet the Press" pro-
gram on July 1 of this year, where he indicated that he didn't think
they had a great deal of effect, and in fact thought that the dirtiest
trick of the campaign was the one the Democrats played on themselves
by their "crazy system of quotas and subquotas."
4684
Mr. Berniiard, I don't know the environment in Avhich the Senator
made that statement. That was also a statement made prior to a lot
of testimony that took place here. I do not think it is very easy for
anybody to evaluate what the impact is until you have had a chance
to absorb and analyze the testimony and evidence that had been ad-
duced before this body. I don't want to disag^ree with Senator Hum-
phrey. I don't think I am equipped to either disagree or agree with
him.
Mr. Madigan. I take it, then, that you are not going to disagree
with Senator McGovern's statement on the weekly program, "Thirty
Minutes With," where he indicated that he didn't think the dirty
tricks influenced more than 100 votes one way or the other.
Mr. Berniiard. I can understand him saying that.
Mr. Madigax. Mr. Chaiiman, I have some questions with respect to
financing, but I w^ould like to defer those for the second round, if I
might.
Senator Ervix. Senator Montoya.
Senator Moxtoya. Mr. Bernhard, one of the things that disturbs
me about the last campaign was the inability of the particular candi-
dates who were victimized by these dirtv tricks, to ascertain in suffi-
cient time to expose the authors of these dirty tricks. "Wliat suggestions
do y9u have by way of legislation to have someone within the frame-
work of legislation set up to make an early investigation, on the spot,
and reach a determination, and place the blame so that the people will
know whether or not if somebody alien to the campaign was perpe-
trating this fraud and deceit upon the American people?
Mr. Bernhard. Senator Montoya, you are asking about the hardest
question I think there is. I suggested this concept of an independent
campaign commission may be expanding on the concepts of Senate
bill 372, but how you set up a ])eremtory investigation without the
opportunity for decision and review of those decisions, I don't know.
This bedevils every effort at reform. It may be that you have got to
accept the inability to do that prior to an election but provide penal-
ties, including possibly the forfeiture of particular delegates in a
State subsequent to the election, should that be proven. I don't know
how to do that one. Senator Montoya. It is tough.
Senator Moxtoya. Well, here is what I ha^e in mind : That many
of these dirty tricks occurred, say, 2 oi' 3 days before an election
or perhaps on the eve of an election, and there is no way to counter
them, and you may have a stiff penalty in the law which prohibits
these activities and that is not going to help the candidate. The candi-
date might be defeated because of these diity tricks.
Now, would you favor, and would you recommend, the establish-
ment of, say. a national commission on truth with referees to make
determinations on the spot at the different State and local levels, if
those determinations are possible.
Mr. Berxiiard. Well, if it could be done, and afforded due process
protection so that ])eople are not maligned for things they didn't do,
I would be in favor of that. I don't know that it can be done. Senator
Montova. I wish it could. I do believe that the work of the Fair Cam-
paign Practices Committee, as laudatory as it might be, has no in-
vestigative power. It just publishes the facts it receives, and that
doesn't do very much.
4685
Senator Montoya. We have no legislation, for instance, on copying
of documents by an employee, we have no legislation with respect to
deceptive ads or the use of spies by one campaign organization within
the other campaign organization, we have no Federal law to cope with
false literature except that we have a law luider our Federal structure
to require the signature or to denote the sponsoi-ship of the particular
literature which is circulated. But I don't think Ave have a Federal law
dealing with the falsity of such literature, and we have no Federal
law, and I doubt whether we have any State laws, I am not aware of
any, dealing with distortions of stands on the part of candidates with
respect to issues, and these are the things that deceive people and
place a fraud on the voter, and these are — it is very essential to guar-
antee to the American voter the integrity of the electoral process,
otherwise they will be in a state of confusion and make a decision
which is premised upon information, bad as it might be, deceptive as
it might be, which they receive, and now Avhat do you have to say to
counteract such possibilities ?
Mr. Berniiard. "Well, as I tried to indicate. Senator Montoya, I
believe there should be some changes in the law, changes in the
restrictions on literature, political propaganda which is being put out.
It may well be that we want to call a halt to some of the last minute-
television and media advertising a number of clays before the final
campaign where it always seems to get I'ougher, cruder, but I think
the kind of things you have addressed yourself to are the kinds of
things I hope this committee will make some recommendation on be-
cause I don't think we should continue with fraud and deceit and I
mentioned the telephones. I don't know how that can be clone but I
think the telephones have become the new letter, the new literature,
and I think that with the growth of, the acceleration of electronics,
there has to be some way to prevent that misuse.
Senator Montoya. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervix. Senator Talmadge.
Senator Talmadge. Mr. Bernhard, in your testimony this morning
you referred to the so-called Canuck letter. Do you know anything
about the origin of that ?
Mr. Berxhard. No ; we have tried very hard. Senator Talmadge, to
ascertain its origin. There has been much speculation in the papers and
elsewhere. We don't know to this day how it started. T have no ques-
tion but it is a total fraud, a total hoax. Senator Muskie never made
the statements that were attributed to him. There were two letters, one
letter in the name of Paul Morrison before the i^rimary and then sub-
sequent to the convention some individual by the name of Eldredge
wrote in a letter to the IVIanchester T'^nion Leader saying, "I must con-
fess I cut down the tree, I really did it, and I was working for Mc-
Govern." I think that was a hoax as well.
Senator Talmadge. Did they have any grand jury investigation ?
Mr. Berxhard. None that I know of.
Senator Talmadge. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervix. Senator Baker.
Senator Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bernhard, I think you have made an extraordinarily useful
and valuable witness for the committee's record. I think you have
given us insight into a primary campaign of a major candidate for
I.
4686
the Presidency. You have identified areas of difficulty, of concern, of
frustrations, and disappointments.
I mio:lit say parentlietically that you worked for a very fine man, a
man for whom I had and still have a very great respect. I was per-
sonally sorry, as distinguished, I suppose, from politically sorry, to
see him badly bruised and battered in the Democratic primary cam-
paigns. But iFor a variety of reasons, including the fact that I was a
Republican fighting for'my life in a Democratic State in 1972, there
was not much I could do except watch with growing alarm. You
worked for a great man.
I would like to wander a little more than we have so far. I would
like to impose on your insights and experiences and good judgment to
explore an aspect or two of the more fundamental concerns that I
harbor about Presidential campaigns.
Let me i-ecite a brief litany of my concerns. I have been told, for
instance, that there are some upwards of 10 million people who may
be engaged, in one way or the other, directly in Presidential cam-
paigns in the course of an election year, block workers, precinct work-
ers, campaign organizations and the like. Our proof so far indicates
it was upwards of maybe as much as $100 million spent in combina-
tion of the primaries and the general election in 1972. I believe I am
right that there isn't another corporation, association or group in the
Ignited States that would rival in size that 10 million, if that is right,
dedicated to that particular endeavor let alone one put together in a
matter of weeks, a staff in many cases by absolute strangers, responsi-
ble by an organization chart and little else, if that, on occasion, re-
sponsive to the requirements of the candidate and instruction of
managers only marginally on occasion, I suspect; and then of course
the terrible, awful voracious appetite for money this animal develops.
It takes an awful lot to make that machine go, whether you are a
Republican or Democrat and I for one wonder, Mr. Bernhard, whether
or not Presidential campaigning is essentially unmanageable, as wo
know it.
I am wondering if we don't have to give some fundamental thought
to how we set about selecting and electing a President. I wonder if
we haven't so gotten into the business of selling Alka-Seltzer that
we spend all our monev on appearances and not substance. I don't
mean to malign Alka-Seltzer but the advertising campaign of a Madi-
son Avenue approach is what T am tnnng to describe.
I will get now to the point of asking you a question. If you had the
opportunity, based on the experience you have had and the judgments
vou obviously possess, do we structure the whole svstem of campaign-
ing, of electoral reform, of the Presidential selection system, disre-
garding for the moment the nuestion of requirements of changes in
the statute law or even in the Constitution, would you care to cut your
ropes and let your balloon soar and tell me how you would do that in
the best interests of the Republic.
Mr. Bernhard. It is a misfhtv big nuestion. Senator Baker.
Senator Baker. I think it is asked from a mighty big witness and I
would like to have his response.
Mr. Bernhard. I have thought that — I will take a stab at it without
great hope of success.
We have to do something to reduce this incredible primary svstem.
The Democratic candidate faces 24 to 26 primaries. We are not talk-
4687
ing about ignoring the Constitution now so I am aware of that. Every
State has a different rule for the primaries. We went through a great
legal problem for from (> weeks to 2 months trying to figure out how
we qualified, what the impact of a particular primaiy would be, where
the delegates were binding, whether we had a beauty contest, whether
it was a discretionary primary, and when we got to the convention
stage it wasn't just the results, every procedure in every State was
different, and I can assure you we made mistakes and got confused in
some of those from a legal standpoint.
Some way, we have to find a way, whether the party should do it,
whether the Congress ought to recommend some procedure to do it,
we have got to reform the primary system.
My problem is when people say let's have regional primaries, let's
have a national primary, the problem I see with a national primary is
that you could have one convulsive national event which could deter-
mine the outcome of that primary and have nothing to do with the
concept of electing the best man to be President. In the regional pri-
maries there would be the ciuestion of what order to follow. I thought
maybe you could have some segments of regional primaries where the
winner of each regional primary could finally contest for the ball game.
But the one thing I am certain, if we keep going the way we are going
now they will become more and more expensive. My recollection was.
Senator Baker, that in 1952, in all the Federal elections, including
Presidential, $150 million was spent. In 1972, including the congres-
sional, Senate, and Presidential elections it was close to $400 million.
It will get worse.
So I think we have to improve on this by shortening the i)eriod of
time for campaigning. I know there are some bills pending right now
that would do that. I would like to see that done. But, in the long haul,
you get down to that very knotty problem of who is paying for it all.
Maybe you eliminate a number of people who aren't far enough ad-
vanced to raise enough money to even compete in the primaries. I
would hope we haven't gotten to the point where people like Senator
]Muskie, who really is not a man of means, are excluded. It would be
tragic if a pereon like that were excluded from the jjrocess but I think
it is very unfair for him not being from a big State.
Senator Baker. Would you say once again, parenthetically, that
money is maybe the biggest single problem in the campaign ?
Mr. Berxiiard. If you had enough money, I could organize in 200
States.
Senator Baker. May I just say there is all the difference in the world
between not enough money and enough money, and no difference at all
between enough money and all the money in the world.
Mr. Bernhard. I can assure you. Senator, that we could have done
a very different job in many different States if we had the money. Sure,
money is vital. The question is how much is the country prepared to
expend? When we talk about Federal financing, I think it has been
estimated that will cost each taxpayer $1 or $2. Maybe it deprives some
people of their convictions to be able to give money by doing it in that
way, having an exclusive Federal financing system but it seems a very-
trifling amount of $1 or $2 to assure that there will be no corruption
in a campaign and to enable people to comjiete on the merits rather
than sending them to campaign with one hand tied behind their back.
4688
So, I think money is a very vital issue. That is why I just pray that
this committee will come up with some recommendation of how to
handle the financial aspect of this campaig:n.
Senator Baker. Do you affree there is just as much a contest to find
out who a man is, as well as what he is, in a Presidential campaioji, and
name recoijnition is sometimes more important than convictions and
issues in the campaign.
Mr. Berniiard. Absolutely correct.
Senator Baker. Any suggestions of how we can change that? I sup-
pose reducing the amount of money you can spend on spot announce-
ments or on television or advertising might have something to do
with it.
Mr. Bernhard. No ; I W' ould not be unhappy if the committee were to
arch its back and iust sav. "Let's end these 1 -minute television spots.''
I think they are inherently deceptive.
Senator Baker. On the other hand, let's take the situation of an in-
cumbent President and a challenger. Maybe a challenger in some fu-
ture system that has not had public exposure and name recognition that i
primaries give to him in the national campaigning, the political circus
jjrings to him. What a problem he would have in trying to gain recog-
nition, to try to let the people, in fact, know who he was before they
found out what he was. So, I wonder about that, too.
I wonder how you balance the advantages of an incumbency.
Mr. Bernhard. Well, there has been a problem, as you know. Senator ;
Baker, trying to establish the concept of the loyal opposition. When the
President speaks, those who would disagree with his policy, the in-
stitution of the Congress, should be enabled to respond. The television
networks are not entirely favorable to that proposal. I think we have
got to find a way during a delimited period of time to have television
made available, maybe without, maybe with public financing or maybe
with no financing.
Senator Baker. What about our friends over here from the writing
press, I suppose they would argue that they affect as much opinion in
the United States as the electronic media. There is no wav on earth I
know of to have a corresponding balance with the writing press, is
there ?
Mr. Bernhard. I don't know how to do that.
Senator Baker. I don't either, unless you elect the press, you might
do that, but I doubt that.
Mr. Bernhard. Xone of them would get in office. [Laughter.]
Senator Baker. What about the business of selecting a Vice Presi-
dent ? Do you have anv suggestions on how we might improve on that
techniaue? Senator Griffin. I understand, proposes that we might pos-
sibly dispense with the popular election of the Vice President in tan-
dem with the President and let the 25th amendment come into opera-
tion there after the selection of the President. Other suggestions have
been made that a candidate, to qualify to run in a Presidential primary,
would have to declare a list of names from which he would propose to
select a running mate so at least some minimal accounting of that likely
choice could be taken by the country. None of these really appeal to
me but the present system doesn't, either. Do you have any suggestions
in that respect ?
Mr. Bernhard. Senator Baker, I am just not omniscient.
4689
Senator Baker. I am not omniscient either, I was looking for some-
1 body else.
Mr. Berniiard. I don't think I really have an answer for you on that.
. I do feel that whoever is Vice President must be able to work in har-
j mony with the man the people elect.
Senator Baker. We tried it once, you know, let the first man be
President and the runner-up be Vice President and we had dueling
a lot.
Mr. Berniiard. I think the one single clean problem is we don't
seem to spend enough time in the search and investigation of the
qualifications of thiit man who the President feels is qualified to run
with him and one with whom he can work. Maybe there is some
kind of procedure we can set up for that. Maybe if you get four or
five different people whom you carefully investigate before you get
to a convention, but I am not sure we can resolve the problems by
changing all the systems of the country at one time.
Senator Baker. I am not either but I am sure that my balloon
is loose from its moorings to the point where I am going to let my
imagination soar. I want to think about it. I think I will probably
end up at a nuich lower altitude than I am suggesting to you now.
But vou know I really get the feeling sometimes that political cam-
paigning in the United States, whether it is for the Senate or for
the Presidency, is more like college politics than it is like the real
fundamental issue-oriented crucially important business of selecting
the Chief Magistrate of the United States. I think Madison Avenue
has captured us so thoroughly that we are dealing with fluff' instead
of substance and fluff costs a lot of money and takes a lot of people
and creates a lot of distortions.
Mr. Berxiiard. Senator Baker, I said in my statement, I really do
not know how I can convey this with any greater sincerity, the
money issue is so real, and it is not just because we ran out of money.
It was the time that was spent in trying to use the Senator's presence
to secure money, dragging him from dinner to dinner, reception to
reception, here is another contributor, interfering with his Senate
schedule, this was incessant, and I assure you he did not find it one
of the most desirable occupations that he had run across in his 25
j^ears in public life. It was endless.
I remember Senator Harold Hughes when he dropped out just
said, "I can't stand raising money," and I think darned near everybody
who is in it has the same feeling. So that is the reason I would
like to see candidates removed from having to find ways to stay
alive or to compete.
Senator Baker. All right. I want to talk about two more things
and I will relinquish my time, Mr. Chairman.
The first one is how, if we went to public financing, we could
protect against guidelines of bureaucratic rules and regulations, and
the second one is this question of full disclosure versus the right to
anonymity. I know Senator ^luskie disclosed all of his contributors,
I believe 'that is correct, including his pie- April 7 except for the
anonymous requests.
Mr. Berxhard. Except for a period from January 31 to April 7,
when we were busy with other things and we never did disclose them,
but the books had been made available.
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11
4690
Senator Baker. Very good. I did the same thing and I know
from fii-sthand experience a lot of people were genuinely angry at
me for disclosing those names. I did it frankly, because I was on
the committee and I just wanted to get that out of the way since
I was the only one on the committee who ran in 1972, and we turned
up a few — I am not going to tell who — I see my Tennessee press is
already scrutinizing me — but we turned up a few, who had con-
tributed to both sides, you know, and that did not set very well.
Mr. Bernard. We turned up quite a few.
Senator Baker. And we found a few others w^ho just were upset
about it, a few who claimed they were entitled to anonymity.
Senator Ervin. I would just say, like a man on his death bed and
the priest told him, "You have a short time in this world, so you
had better renounce the devil and all his works," and he said, "No,
I am not going to do a thing like that because I do not know w^hose
hands I am going to fall into." [Laughter.]
Senator Baker. I am in no position to make — OK, let us talk about
that for a minute. That has to do with private financing of campaigns
and Avhether, in fact, there is a valid basis for requesting anonymity.
This has come up before in the committee and I will not try to lead you
into an answer. Do you care to elaborate on that any further? There
would not be a problem for us to get public financing but I want to
talk about a few problems there in just a second.
]Mr. Bernhard. Of course, right there it is not just a problem with
the Campaign Reform Act.
Senator Baker. Since we passed that period of adolescence.
Mr. Bernhard. It is a very hard question. You know the implica-
tion in that is that people who contribute anonymously are con-
tributing dirty money, money from the corporations or unions, banks,
they are dealing in cash. Cash as a legal tender is no longer acceptable
in terms of the public mind. At the same time you have got this prob-
lem that I tried to address myself to. Some people have internal family
reasons why they do not want to contribute openly. Others, as I indi-
cated quite explicitly, did not want to contribute publicly because
there had been a kidnaping of the son of one of our contributors
in California; the fear of the administration in power retaliation and
all the rest of them. The problem that I am worried about is if you
retain private financing there are many, many people who simply will
not contribute, and I can say this with as much conviction as I can say
anything, that the estimates of what we lost, after we disclosed before
the Florida primary, run from a decline of a half million to a million
dollars that we had anticipated that we might receive.
Senator Baker. Because you disclosed ?
Mr. Berxhard. Because we said that we would then be forced to dis-
close. We were told by people — I know that we attended a dinner, I
know we talked to Senator Muskie, I can tell you that I was on the
phone in tlie Americana Hotel in ]\Iiami Beach for 3 days calling con-
tributors, those who had made pledges or commitments and those who
had made contributions, to say this was a decision that had been made
and it Avould have to be followed. It cost us dearly.
Now I am saying it should not. I do not want to get into the ethics
of whether one thing is better than another but if you are going to
keep private financing I think you are going to find that come 1976 a
4691
, very significant number of people simply are not going to participate
,; financially in these campaigns. They are concerned, they are concerned
\ about retaliation. I must say that the result of the facts that have been
adduced in this hearing would sure make me very concerned to become
a well-known, high rolling contributor to a Democratic opponent of
the administration in po^^■er. So 1 am not prepared to say that the
whole concept of anonymit}' is bad. You would like it done away with
but 1 think short of public financing it will decrease the amount of
money available for the opposition party and particularly for the
lesser-known candidates.
Senator Baker. Especially in the case of a challenger against an
incumbent.
Mr. Bernhard. I think that is a valid observation.
Senator Baker. I have a lot of other questions in that respect, but
I will i)ass them now and go to the other question and that is, I have
always instinctively had a suspicion of public financing. I have never
, quite trusted it, mostly for the reasons I just told you. I think it is
such a delicate part of a democratic system that I sort of hate for
the engine of government itself to dictate methods itself, and finance
techniques by which its own officers are selected.
This may be too high a philosophical value, but it does bother me.
And I am woi'ried about a great many things, such as how we have
' an impartial administration, of the fact how we make realistic or
\' diminish the advantages of incumbency, how we permit people to
i; become valid challengers, how we guard the rights of those who
do not w^ant anything to do Avith either candidate, and there is a
: great body of those on occasion, I ani told, even sometimes that the
majority of people vote against someone instead of for someone.
I variously believe that or not, depending on whether I was running
against someone or for i-eelection. Do you care to give me any further
insiglit into how you think public financing will work and what the
I dangers are?
Mr. Berniiard. I tried to take a look at the six or seven bills which
are ponding in the Senate, and you know, I would like to say if we
were going to have public financing it should apply to Presidential
' as well as congressional. Senatorial elections, everybody ought to be
' in the same bag. I think I would be inclined at this point to focus
; my attention on tlie Presidential campaigns because of then- extremely
heavy costs. My inclination would be to have some kind of a matching
I grant program for the primaries where a contender in those primaries
I would have to show some substantial support.
Senator Baker. Two questions. One, the matching grant only in
I the primaries and not the general election.
Mr. Bernitard. I think that is right.
Senator Baker. Is that a legalism to avoid the constitutional
question?
Mr. Bernhard. No.
Senator Baker. Or a statement of policy?
]\fr. Bernhard. Xo, a statement of policy. I am not sure there is a
constitutional problem there. T presume you^are talking about the right
to free exercise of your convictions. I am concerned really, about the
thought that people ought to trv to generate some support in the pri-
mary to show they are viable candidates and maybe the ability to raise
L
4692
some money as an indication there is a passion toward a particular
candidate, although I would not do it on a dollar-for-dollar basis. I
think I would do it on a different basis three, four, five to one. I would
put limitations on what any individual could contribute privately even
in the primaries. But I would go from there, I believe, that once you
had selected candidates in the conventions of the respective parties, I
think I would go at this point at least at present with full Federal
financing.
Senator Baker. All right. That is, I think, as far as I would care
to go. I would throw out two or three other thoughts and not even ask
you to respond, but just so you have them in your mind, in case you
want to speak of them at another time or we have a chance to discuss
it another time.
I think we ought to give some thought to electoral as well as cam-
paign reform. I think we ought to give some thought to democratizinfr
the party system. And what occurs to me is the election of delegates to
conventions by popular vote. I think as you say, the primary system
should be rationalized. Your friend and my friend. Senator Muskie.
remarked, and I am sure he will not think it a violation of confidence,
during the primary campaigns of 1972, he said, "You know, we have
to find a way out of this business of having an election every Satur-
day," and it is true. It grinds up good men. I think that there are a
number of other things we have to do but, as you say, we are not
omniscient and we just have to do the best we can with it. And I thank
you for your thoughts.
Mr. Bernhard. Thank you.
Senator Ervin. I have misgivings about public financing of cam-
paigns. In the first place, I do not know how you are going to decide
who is going to get the campaign funds from the public. I cannot
figure it on any fair, rational basis by which you can determine
which of the candidates should receive public financing, because we
have a lot of people running for office. We used to have one in my
State every 2 years who would file for either U.S. Senate or Governor
and got his name printed on 3 or 4 million ballots and after he filed,
that is all he did, and somebody asked him why he filed every 2 years
for major office, he said, "Because I raise and sell pigs and I cannot
get — I can file for a very small amount of money, I get more advertis-
ing for my pigs with that amount of money than any other way."
And he said, "People asked who was that fool running for Gov-
ernor or U.S. Senator," and he said, "They get curious and they come
to see what kind of a fellow I am and look at my pigs and buy some
of my pigs." [Laughter.]
Should a fellow like that get public financing, since he is willing to
spend his money like that for advertising purposes. I cannot find any
rational criteria by which we can determine who should be the recipi-
ent of Government financing and who is to make that determination.
Mr. Bernhard. Mr. Chairman, that has been the hard problem, I
guess, all along. It was the problem in Senator Long's original bill
that he tried to meet. A\niat do you do, for example, for a third-party
candidate, what kind of formula? And he did recommend a specific
formula and tried to do that.
Senator ER^^N. But the third party would get his funding after
he lost the race, instead of in advance, and wouldn't be able to get it.
4693
, Frankly, I think the political parties and candidates have failed to
[ work the field that is open to them on the provision of the Internal
I Revenue Code, which allows each person to make a contribution of
' $50 to the candidate or party of his choice, and to take a $25 tax credit
against his taxes or a $50 deduction from his gross income, whichever
is the most advantageous to him, and I think that, by the use of that
statute, that major parties and major candidates could finance their
campaigns.
j Mr. Berxiiard. AVell, maybe, Mr. Chairman, I just know that at
least — you are right, the past year has not been exemplary in terms
I of returns based on either tax checkoff or the deduction. People just
: haven't really responded. It may have been because of the physical
location or the newness of it but it hasn't been enough, and I gather
it has been rather dismal.
Senator Er\tn. I don't believe they worked the field very well.
Because they go after the big contributors.
Mr. Berxhard. Sure.
Senator Ervix. Because they get more in. We had a very great man
in North Carolina named Judge — a member of our State supreme
court — Willis J. Brogden, in Durham, and had a strong desire along
about 1980 to run for the T^.S. Senate. Well, he didn't enter the race
and I thought he would have won it easily. I saw him a short time
thereafter and told him, I said, "Judge, if you had just entered the
race, you would have been nominated for the Senate."
He said, '"Well, I am used to people having a mortgage on their
property but I wasn't able to finance a campaign and I am not used
to people having a mortgage on me."
And I think tliat deters a lot of men from entering politics, and
the pi'ivate financing — the trouble with it is so many people make
contributions that they think they are paying in advance for favors
they are going to receive from their party if it wins. And I think we
have hardly scratched the surface on this question of financing, because
I have often thought any industry or any individual that is in trou-
ble with the Government Agency — it ought to be a crime for him to
make a contribution and it ought to be a crime for anybody to solicit
a contribution from him or accept it, and I have thought the same
thing about the pressure that is brought on industries to make con-
tributions to the Government, when they are largely dependent upon
the activities of Government for their prosperity.
That is a species of moral coercion to make campaign contributions
and I think some of the questions Senator Baker asked you, and
some I suggest, are calling on you to unscrew the inscrutable.
Mr. Berxhard. That is how I felt.
Senator Ervix. Xow. I will agree with you in your appraisal, vou
say that you cannot — you are unable to — find any yardstick by which
you can measure to your own satisfaction, the result of some of the
efforts of sabotage of campaigns and some of the so-called dirty tricks;
liow much effect they had in the number of votes that were influenced
by them. But can vou tell me what effect you think campaign tactics in
the 1972 Presidential election had on the confidence of the American
poonle in their Government ?
Mr. Berxhard. Mr. Chairman, I think that 1972 was a disaster.
I think that the respect which now exists for public elected officials is
4694
at a nadir. I think people don't care about voting. Even before the
disclosures that have taken place here, my recollection was that some
62 million people didn't vote in 1972. People are turning away from
Government. Before we were worried about whether the bureaucracy
was responsive to Government's needs, whether we were being over-
whelmed by big government and too much concentration in Washing-
ton, D.C. and so on, now it is much broader than that.
Now, it goes right to whether you are going to trust a single person
you elect to office. "Am I going to believe a single word that you say
to me? Am I going to believe any advertising that is put out by you?
Am I going to believe you are serving my interests at all?"
I think it is engulfing the country right now and that is why I frank-
ly believe that wTiat this committee does is much rnore vital than even
you may think, because people are going to be looking here and saying,
"Is this committee going to recommend the kind of reforms, based
on all that it has heard, that wnll make a difference, to restore some
credibility ?" I don't say that in any trite way, I mean real credibility.
Wlio are you going to believe any more ? That is the real problem,
and if it doesn't come from this committee, I don't know w^here it is
coming from.
Mr. Chairman, let me, as I was trying to get this ready, I ran across
something which I would just like to read to you and I really believe
it is applicable to the committee. It was an epitaph which was found
on a church near London and it said, "In the year 1653 when all things
sacred in the kingdom w^ere either profaned or demolished, this church
w^as built by Sir Richard Shirlye, baronet, whose singular place it was
to do the best things in the worst of times."
And I think that is what the country is looking for to this committee
right now.
Senator Ervin. Now, we have uncontradicted evidence here that Mr.
Segretti was employed by Mr. Dwight L. Chapin, appointment secre-
tary in the "VYhite House, that he was paid by Mr. Kalmbach, out of
money which American citizens had contributed to advance the polit-
ical fortunes of the President, and we have had evidence here and it is
admitted, uncontradicted, that in the Florida primary that Mr. Se-
gretti, in effect, had scurrilous charges, what I call forged, on a fac-
simile of the letterhead of Senator Muskie, and circulated scurrilous
charges against Senator Humphrey and Senator Jackson, which are
too foul for me to repeat here, and then, when we had the Department ,
of Justice or the FBI investigating this matter, the Department of
Justice reputedly, according to the press, stopped the investigation on
the ijround that sabotage operations of this character were not against
the law.
Now, what effect do you think that had in confidence of the people
in the Department of Justice ?
Mr. Bernhard. I would think that they would have the sense that
the charge given to them to carry out justice was being undermined,
that if there was no desire to try to brino; to the bar the people who
were engaged in essentially felonious conduct, where was the even hand
of justice? And had not the Department and the FBI become, instead
of an independent judicial arm. a political arm of the administration
in power ? I think to me one of the thinars that has been the most trouble-
some in the last year or year and a half is this fear of the politication of
4695
the Department of Justice and other agencies which have other charges
i and other commitments tliat are being: misused.
Senator Ervix. I have been informed by Senator Jackson that when
these charg,es were made, I think about October in 1972, he called it
to the attention of the office of the U.S. district attorney in Florida,
called it to the attention of the Depai-tment of Justice, and notwith-
standing those facts, said no indictment was I'eturned in connection
with the matters until about the last of April of this year.
Don't you think that when crimes are committed wdiich go toward —
attack the very integrity of the electoral process, tliat justice ought to
be swift, instead of treading on leaden feet like that?
]Mr. Bernhaiu). Of course, Mr. Chairman, and if it is not, where is
the integrity of the law and why should people respect it.
You talk about the need for law and order. That means law and
order for everybody, and it means an awareness of law and order, of
transgressions of the law on the part of anybody and T think it may be
trite, the old talk of justice delayed is justice denied, there is just no
law at all.
Senator Ervix. I am not concerned in this hearing about how many
votes weie influenced by these tactics, but as an American, I am greatly
concerned about the effect these tactics have had, not only on the integ-
rity of the electoral pi'ocess, it may not involve that too much instead
of the integrity, not the quantitative vote on America but what it
has done to the contidence of the American people, I think that is
tragic.
Mr. Berxhard. I agree with you.
Senator Ervix. Because we have got the greatest country' on earth,
we have got the greatest system of government on earth. And it is not
the defects in the system so much as it is the defects of some human
beings who are entrusted with political powere that have brought us
to this very tragic hour.
I want to commend your statement. I think it was a fairly restrained
statement and I think it made a very significant contribution to the
iuATstigations this committee has been attempting to carrv^ on.
Mr. Berxhard. I appreciate it vei-y much.
iVIr. Lexzxer. Mr. Chairman, before IMr. Benihard leaves, I would
like, if I may, have his documents marked as exhibits in evidence and
be submitted to the committee, and also the two exhibits that he has
identified this afternoon.
Mr. Chainnan, may that be done?
Senator Ervix. Yes, without objection, they will be accepted in evi-
dence and marked appropriately as exhibits.
[The docmnents submitted by Mr. Bernhard were marked exhibits
Nos. 244-1 through 244-31*. The so-called Ficker letter was previously
entered as exhibit No. 197 in Book 10, p. 4266, and the memorandum
from Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General was marked exhibit
No. 245.**]
Mr. Lexzxer. I also want to thank Mr. Bernhard in behalf of the
committee, and join Avith Senator Baker and Senator Ervin. I think
your testimony has been some of the most significant testimony re-
ceived. I am sorry that it did not receive wider coverage than it has.
*For page numbers that exhibits Nos. 244-1 through 244-31 appear on, see contents
pages.
••Exhibit No. 245 appears on p. 4889.
4696
I hope the significance and the importance of it is grasped by this
country.
Thank you very much.
Senator Ervix' I think you had some other questions, Mr. Madigan.
Mr. Madigax. I do not think I have any other questions, Mr. Chair-
man.
Senator Ervix. There is just one other thing about financing this
election. The Senate bill carried some limitations on the amount of
cash to be received as contributions on this, first, as expenditures for
political purposes. Do you not think there should be some substantial
limitation on the use of cash in political campaigns ?
Mr. Berxhard. I absolutely do.
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I might say that I noted with in-
terest that the witness indicated that they kept a small amount of
cash in the safe for petty cash purposes and other purposes. I cannot
resist being reminded of Howard Preston, who was a great banker
in Tennessee. He came from a small town in middle Tennessee called
Woodbury. And he said one day, that when he left home to make his
way in the world, his mother said, "Son, you oughter start a business
of your own and be the boss or go w4th a large company and get in
charge of petty cash."
Mr .'Berxhard. We may do just the opposite.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervix. Thank you, Mr. Bernhard.
The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock in the morning.
[IVhereupon, at 3 :35 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene
at 10 a.m., Thursday, November 1, 1973.]
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Exhibit No. 227
[From the Washington Star, Sept. 27, 1971]
(By Morris Siegel)
On the other hand. Hubert H. Humphrey, who, incidentally didn't make it
working with Bob Short either, apparently doesn't miss anything that went with
I being No. 2 except his chauffeur-driven car, if he misses that. . . . He cabbed it
over to a luncheon with editors the other day and once the hack driver discovered
'who his distinguisiied passenger was he wouldn't accept any money for the
fare. . . . "No way, Senator, I'm gonna take any money from you. You oufeht
to be President," he said proudly when Humphrey offered him money. . . . On
the return trip to Capitol Hill, Humphrey got into another cab and it was the
same story all over again. . . . Now if somebody will come along and offer
Humphrey an airiJl^Jie ride in a reasonable facsimile of Air Force One he might
not even miss being President.
(4697)
ft
4698
Exhibit No. 228
CAMERAS PROJECTORS ENLARGERS PHOTO SUPPLIES
PENN
CAMERA EXCHANGE INC
^^'Damoui. joz. Q/alu^i."
AM lOfh ST., N.W,
347-5777
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004
347-5778 f
0 / "^-^ / 1
\ CAb\e ^eVec^se
Shvs.I'o
4699
Exhibit No. 229A
4700
Exhibit No. 229B
4701
Exhibit No. 229C
4702
Exhibit No. 229D
4703
Exhibit No. 230
In 1966, I was attending Murray when I became involved in my first out
of state campaign. A young progressive lawyer was running for the US Senate
in Tennessee. I took frequent trips down across the border to help work as a
volunteer in the Howard Baker Jr. campaign. I helped stuff envelopes and make
house to house canvasses in Nashville and Hazel, Tennessee. These house to
house canvasses were a new tactic to me. The deep south person to person low
key type of campaign was somewhat different to the big city mass media
campaigns I had gone through in 1964 in Louisville. The Baker campaign in
1966 was successful and to the day the impression of hand to hand, mouth to
mouth tactic sticks out in my mind as one of the most effective.
1967 was the year of the big Republican primary in Kentucky. Two distinctly
opposite men filed for the governorships in the 67 primary. One was a big city
political boss that was used to dictating policy. This candidate was Marlow
Cook. The other candidate was a country lawyer used to the "small town"
folksy manner of campaigning. This candidate was Louie Nunn. Again my father
was also a candidate. He filed for Clerk of the Court of Appeals. When my father
first filed for the office he received a hands-off attitude from the County Judge
Cook. When it became evident that the two major candidates were going to
slate candidates for the major state offices Cook came to my father and told
him to withdraw from the clerks race. When my father refused Mr. Cook
ordered him fired. This ius-ide look at political pressure showed me that politics
is very educational but very risky and uncertain.
It was during the '67 Governors race that I became most enthusiastically
involved. I was attending Murray and was President of the Murray State
Young Republicans Club. During the primary election I travelled all over the
state and became familiar with all types of county, city, and statewide campaign
organizations. The primary was the biggest and closest in state Republican his-
tory. Louie Nunn won the nomination and eventually the governorship.
The fall general election was the most active and educational I had ever been
involved in. While traveling during the '67 campaign I met more people and
ate more cold sandwiches than I thought existed. The election was when I
learned about local organization. I was assisted by out of state experts. It was
during the '67 election that I learned how to organize and assist complete strang-
ers for political motive. I worked close with a man* sent down to Kentucky
from Washington DC to organize and train young college students. The most
important thing I learned was how to be influential and unnoticed at the same
time.
I worked in local and state elections regularly until 1972. The events that led
up to this work were very strange to me. As I mentioned I first heard of this
national job while I was working at Ford Motor Company. In Mid-February of
1972 I was called at work and asked to work for an unidentified national orga-
nization. A man whom I did not know, called me. He knew all about me and my
political training and activities. The person asked me if I would meet him to dis-
cuss this job. I was suspicious to a certain extent so I told him the only meeting I
would have would be in Louisville. According to my set-up plan. On February 26
I met a young man named Jason Rainer at the Executive Inn lobby in Louisville.
At this meeting Jason explained to me that he worked for a group of individuals
that were interested in politics and needed some young men to investigate differ-
ent Democratic primary organizations and report on them. At this meeting very
few details were discussed. The major outcome of this first meeting was that
I would always work alone and that I would be able to use my own methods for
the surA'eillance. Jason told me that I would start to work the 15th of March.
When I questioned him about my job at Ford's he suggested I just take a leave
of absence. I told him the only kind of leave I could get was an educational
leave to attend school. He suggested that I take that and that his bosses could
get me some college credits for the type of work I would be doing to explain the
leave if needed. I arranged the leave from work and on March 16 I received a
call from a young lady saying she was Jason's secretary and that he would
wire me some expense money the 17th. On the 20th of March Jason called and
told me he wanted me to go to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the next day.
♦I later discovered that his name was Roger Stone. This was also confirmed later when
F.B.I, asent named Simon told me in Louisville that Stone had testified before a federal
grand jury in New York.
i
4704
My instructions were to go to Milwaukee and work in the Ed Muskie campaign
as a volunteer and report on the campaign organization and the people working in
the campaign organization. I was in Milwaukee from March 21 to March 31.
My next assignment was in Philadelphia, Penna. I went to Philly on April
phrey's headquarters. It was in Philly that I was most successful at infiltrating
a headquarters. I was in a tru.sted position as one of the phone bank head-
quarters and gained the complete confidence of the organization staff. I was often
introduced to staff members by other staff members as a very hard working dedi-
cated worker.
My next trip took me to California. I left for California on April 30. I stayed
until June 2. While in California I spent most of my time in Humphrey's head-
quarters but I did work in the McGovern headquarters on occasion.
On June 20 I was called to Washington to confer with one of the "bosses". I
stayed in Washington until July 2. After my mysterious phone call with the big
"boss" I spent the rest of my time working around the McGovern National head-
quarters. I came back to Louisville and packed to go to Florida on an assign-
ment. I went to Florida on July 5 and stayed until July 13. While in Florida. I
worked in McGovem's Headquarters at the Doral Hotel.
When I returned to Louisville I went on a short trip to the lake. On the 15th
of July, Jason called me and told me that the operation I worked in was being
dissolved. I had been expecting such a call since the news broke about the con-
nection between the Reelect the President Committee and one of the men caught
in the break-in of the Democrat National headquarters. During my tenure with
the unidentified organization I noticed a concern for lawful tactics and I was
often encouraged to be very careful that I did nothing illegal.
4705
Exhibit Xo. 231
March 2i.— Arrived in Milwaukee at 5 :20 PM Tuesday 21 March 1972. Checked
into Pfister Hotel room 208. cleaned up and ate supper. Drove around in taxi
and checked out McGovern, Jackson, McCarthy and Muskie headquarters for
location and obtained .some literature from each.
Went back to hotel and retired, 10 :00 PM.
March 22. — Got up at 9 :00 AM. Went directly to McGovern headquarters?.
Talked to Merle McDonald, OflBce Coordinator. Obtained list of Mc-Govem
office workers. Went to airport with campaign workers for McGovern press
conference and arrival. Went over to Marquette University and met John
Michaels, chairman of Mu.skie activities. We went over to main headquarters
on 710 Plankinton street. John mimeographed Muskie vs McGovern debate on
campus. Rented a car for transportation from Avis. Messed around in head-
quarters all evening talking and questioning workers in Muskie office.
Wallace arrived in town for big rally.
Went to bed at 12 :30 PM.
March 23. — Got up at 8 :30 AM. Dressed and went to McGovern Press con-
ference in Pfister Hotel. Demonstrators out.side for anti-abortion cause created
small problem. Went by Muskie headquarters and nosed around and got some
press releases. Spent some time over at Marquette. McGovern people were
taking down Muskie signs.
Went back to Pfister and moved to Holiday Inn Central. Went back to Muskie
headquarters and got .schedule of ijeople and places for Muskie Organizations,
a list of campaign issues that the organizers are categorically listed.
Talked to Jason at 7 :15 PM. Went back to headquarters and helped with
mailing. Went over to Marquette at 8 :00 PM for debate between McGovern and
Muskie representatives. Planned question among students kept either side from
gaining any advantage.
Headquarters is so confusing you can tell someone to do something and
they do it without questioning if its helpful or harmful. Went to bed at 3 :00 AM.
March 24- — Got up at 8 :00 AM. Went to headquarters and obtained a list
of volunteer workers. Went out to Negro area and talked to some young
colored boys. They were collecting literature Muskie people had distributed in
the neighborhood and throwing it away. Muskie wanted his speakers to speak
at all high schools in Milwaukee. This project has been scrapped due to protest.
Went to Muskie headquarters and obtained list of all Democrat Ward Officers
in Milwaukee County. Talked to Jackson people and went to McGovern head-
quarters. Tom Southwick, the youth coordinator for McGovern, is lining up
some marches for Sunday. Talked to Jason at 2 :30 AM. Went to bed at 4 :30 AM.
March 25. — Got up at 9 :00 AJM. Went to McGovern headquarters, talked to
Southwick about Sunday TV interview with Muskie that Southwick planned to
disrupt. Came back to Holiday Inn to rest for tonight and type this report.
Went to Muskie headquarters obtained maps of all precincts and wards in
Milwaukee county. The maps show precincts, wards and districts in detail. It
also has smaller maps that show where all polling places are located. Went
back to McGovern headquarters and watched McGovern people making signs
for Sunday like "America needs a leader not a cry baby." The McGovern
people are very enthused about marches against Muskie.
After supper I went back to Muskie headquarters and obtained the latest
scheduling sheet. The schedule calls for Muskie to meet and speak to people
at the American Legion Hall at Stevens Point on Tuesday, 28th of March
at 3 : 50 PM. Wc .it back to room and rested.
March 21. — Up at 8 AM. Went down to cafeteria and talked with Muskie press
people. They did not seem too impressed with the rally at Pfister last night. Only
about %rds of the people there had bought tickets, the rest were free-loaders.
Muskie seems to have plenty of money now but his supply must not be being
replaced. Evidently he is not receiving any big contributions since Florida pri-
mary. His people are becoming very nervous about the Wisconsin primary. It
seems like this primary, April 4, could really hurt Muskie money wise. Their
press people are trying to take the significance of the Wisconsin primary away.
Went to UWM to hear Muskie speak. His little speech was a disaster. Protesters
started in on him as soon as he stood up to talk. They had the whole crowd
shouting and hollering at him in about 5 minutes. The Amnesty questions just
totally ruined Muskie's whole program. He left UT\"M very, very angry and the
crowd noticed it.
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11
4706
Went down to headquarters and obtained a schedule of Jane Muskie's appear-
ances. The list of events goes all the way until primary day. Xosed around head-
quarters and listened.
March 28. — Went down to Muskie headquarters and helped phone people. I
just can't seem to find any Muskie support with these damn Yankees. Obtained
a list of ward chairmen for Muskie. Muskie does not have a chairman in each
ward.
Took 4 people out to AO Smith Company to pass out leaflets. It was cold, so I
talked them into drinking beer instead of passing (nit leaflets.
March 2.9.— Went to Muskie headquarters and obtained a revised schedule of
Muskie events. Stayed at headquarters all afternoon. Went over tlie Lincoln
Avenue headquarters and removed listing of people that were to be contacted
Sunday, April 2nd.
Returned to hotel to phone Jason. He asked about racial issue.
March 30. — Went directly to south side headquarters to see if I could get a list
of Negro workers. Xo such list was available. Went over to Humphrey head-
quarters and gave them Muskie's schedule. Left for McGovern's head<iuarters
talked with Tom Southwick, youth organizer, and helped him organize a south
side canvas, door to door.
Left and went back to Muskie headquarters. A last minute mailing was being
prepared and I was in charge of volunteers sorting mail. When I left at 7 PM, the
mailing was about a third done.
The planned street campaigning by Muskie was called off due to bad weather
and a crowded schedule. Mu.skie is planning to go into private hotel rooms for
most of holiday weekend.
March 31. — Watched Muskie on morning show. He looks and acts very tired.
Went down to headquarters and diverted .some election day precinct materials.
Looked around for any last minute changes in schedule. The weekend calls for
church services and no public appearances for campaigning.
Went over to McGovern headquarters [copy illegible] minute neighborhood
canvas. Went back to hotel and packed my bags. Left Milwaukee on a 7 :10 flight
for Chicago and Louisville.
4707
Exhibit No. 232
muskie organization, wisconsin primaby
Ed Muskie's campaign organization in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, was a very loose-
knit group. There was no central leader of the workers in the headquarters. A
group of about five people from the Washington DC campaign headquarters were
in Wisconsin to direct the campaign on the administrative level. Often the lead-
ers of the organization would hamper the campaign by giving conflicting instruc-
tions to the workers. The major problem seemed to be that all of these leaders
were competing with each other and not concentrating on a unified victory effort.
The Strength of Muskie's Wisconsin Campaign probably came from the work-
ing men that was tired of the old line Democrat party but yet not radically con-
servative enough to move into the AVallace cage. Many college people were work-
ing at the Muskie Headquarters. Yet Muskie drew only token support from college
students. Muskie did not seem to go over big with either the old or black groups.
Muskie's lack of personality and his lack of a firm stand on basic issues probably
hurt his campaign strength more than any other thing.
The amount of money spent in Wisconsin by Ed Muskie's organization was
tremendous. Muskie seemed to have all the money he needed to run an effective
campaign. Money was available to mail large quantities of letters and pamphlets
to the voters. The Milwaukee headquarters was complete with phones, news re-
corders, phone-a-message machines, mimeograph machines, Zerox and all the
modern headquarter equipment. A phone bank was located on the 14th floor.
Many phones were available for calling or canvassing voters. The 3rd floor was
almost entirely occupied by Muskie people. The headquarters was located in the
heart of the city of Milwaukee and it was set up on top notch form. Muskie also
had district and statewide headquarters in all major cities. At any headquarters
a voter could obtain : campaign buttons, pamphlets, bumper stickers, posters
or printed material, or anything else the voter desired. Muskie workers were
not concerned about the amounts of campaign material that an individual wanted.
It should be noted that although Muskie was conducting the best financed cam-
paign, up until the Wisconsin primary, the campaign contributions coming into
Muskie headquarters seemed to be in critical shape as the campaign continued.
Muskie was spending approximately 100 times more money than what was
coming into the campaign fund. It was my conclusion from what I saw and
heard that Muskie was rapidly using up all the money that had been contributed
to his campaign. Most of which was collected before the Florida primary.
Muskie's campaign was operated by a very large group of workers that were
following the campaign from state to state. Many of the people operating the
headquarters wei'e on the paid national staff. Volunteer workers were plentiful at
the beginning of the campaign, but toward the end of March, people began to
drop out of the volunteer program. Part of this decline can be attributed to the
'fact that the campaign was a long one and many novice workers became bored
with the routine of campaign practices.
Muskie's press organization was very weak. The people working in his press
room were inexperienced and lazy. No advantage was taken of Muskie's strong
points in regards to news coverage and opportunities. No successful effort was
made to play down the Wisconsin primary results when it became evident that
Muskie would not do well in Wisconsin. The press campaign staff was probably
one of the reasons Muskie can not regain the winners image.
Security in Muskie's headquarters was also very weak. No one I talked to had
any sense of security or secrecy. It was easy to walk anywhere in the head-
quarters or to read materials in the headquarters. The security at Muskie's
hotel was no better. The Secret Service agents were good but not protective. It is
annoying to me how easy it would be to assassinate Muskie or his wife. In fact
one time, Jane ]Muskie and I rode up 5 stories in the elevator with only one other
person, a presswoman. On several occasions. Muskie would walk out of his room
or across the hall alone. Security would definitely have to be tightened around
Muskie and his headquarters if he would become the nominee.
The planning of Muskie's campaign was not very good and its effectiveness was
even worse. The conflict between his own top organizers and their lack of ability
to properly in.struct the campaign workers greatly hampered Muskie's organiza-
tion. The campaign in Wisconsin was not very effective because people were not
well organized behind either the candidate or his stand on the issues. The lack
of a strong stand on the issues by Muskie and the lack of a central campaign co-
I
4708
ordinator are the two main reasons that I believe Muskie's bid in the Wisconsin
primary will fall short of even being a respectable showing.
Wisconsin predictions, March SI, 1972
Percent
McGovem 30
Wallace 20
Humphrey 18
Muskie 10
Jackson S
Lindsay 8
Chisholm 0
Mills 6
Hartke 0
Total 100
4709
Exhibit No. 233
April 10. — I arrived at Philadelphia at 10 AM. Went downtown to Humphrey
Headquarters in the Adelphia Hotel, on the 7th floor. Signed up as a volunteer
worker with Gertrude Atcovity. AVorked around headquarters and listened all
afternoon. Left the downtown headquarters and went to 59th Street headquar-
ters. I nosed around and looked for documents. Campaign literature is scarce at
headquarters on ij9th street and downtown.
I went back to town and got a car from Hertz.
April 11. — Went down to Humphrey headquarters at the Adelphia. Got schedule
of Humphrey's appearances for April 10-17. I worked about 2 hours and then left.
Went to "tOth street headquarters. Not much going on so I looked around for
important documents. Nothing much out in ofiice so I went back downtown.
Found a list of Humphrey County Chairman at downtown headquarters. Helped
address letters to delegates from li>68 convention. Went back to hotel for supi^er.
Went over to 1719 Chestnut to phone bank headquarters. Gertrude Atcovity
met me over there and explain the operation to me. She wants me to help
supervise the office. The people are taking cards with phone numbers from across
index for each block. They call the names on the block until they get a volunteer
worker or block captain for each street. They have about 20 callers working for
$1.65 per hour. There are 2 shifts, one from 9-5 and one from 5-9 and with 20
callers working. While I was there, Gertrude put me checking the cards that
had been called. I promptly put people on calling and duplicating cards that had
been done by the day shift. The phone set up is quite elaborate. Humphrey is
spending ^^ of his budget on the phone bank and literature packets that the
block captains will distribute.
April 12. — Went over to headquarters at Adelphia Hotel and messed around
until lunch time and went to airport with John Dooley. We had lunch and I
pumped him for information about the locked rooms at headquarters. Press and
scheduling materials are in the rooms according to John.
I went over to phone bank and reviewed cards. I rearranged the cards again so
that night shift would re-call a lot of day shift's cards.
Spent most of evening trying to find some important papers lying around head-
quarters at Adelphia hotel. Not much is left out so I guess next week I will try to
buy my way into locked rooms. I will spend rest of this week on phone bank and
block captain programs.
April 13. — Went over to headquarters and looked around. People at headquar-
ters were not too cheerful. The trip by Humphrey to steel mills and plants is not
going too well. The union rank and file do not seem too impressed with Humphrey
this year. Muskie has the support of the local Democrat organization, but the
Democrat Mayor Rizzo has practically endorsed Nixon. Rizzo beat the machine
here and has a lot of pull among local workers. Ex-mayor Tate is supporting
Humphrey but his people are all old and belief in all the old time practices.
Humphrey must not have the money everyone believes he has because they sure
make a big deal if someone spends any money.
After supper I went to phone bank to supervise. The goal of the phone bank
was 6.000 captains. We have just over 2,000 now with April 17th as cut off day.
I doubt if they will get 4,000. I heli>ed with addressing the packets we did about
1,000, but I didn't tell people to put zip codes on so now they all must be re-
checked by day shift. Zip codes are necessary for bulk rate mail. The people
making calls were cut in half so I could have half the people to address packets.
The sample ballots will be in tomorrow.
After we closed down the phone bank at 9 :30, I went over to Adelphia Hotel
where I met ex-mayor Jim Tate. He is so thankful I am helping at the phone
bank. He invited me to a big party election night. He told me that they were
depending on me to get the sample ballots distributed to block captains.
April jff — Went to phone bank early. Addressing of packets is still messed up
and so are the phone cards. Repetition of calls is starting to aggravate the volun-
teer block cai)tains. The captains are getting called 2 or 3 times and it is beginning
to bother them. Some captains have already quit because of the repeated calls.
Went to Adelphia to check for a revised Humphrey schedule.
Muskie people were notified of Humphreys schedule until IMonday by me. I
will call Muskie people :Mondav and give them the revised .schedule.
I went back to phone bank and started putting sample ballots in envelopes.
There are about 45 divisions in each ward and about 66 wards in Phiadelphia.
There are 2 different types of voting machines used in Philadelphia.
4710
April 15. — Went over to Adelphia and talked to workers about campaign. Hum-
phrey people are not too contident in Philadelphia but they feel good about Penn-
sylvania. Most workers feel Muskie is out of race because of Massachusetts, and
Penn. primary not looking good for Muskie. Humphreys people feel that they
will win easy in California.
April 16. — Went to Adelphia headquarters got new schedule for Humphrey cam-
paign up to April 25th.
Came back to room and called Muskie headquarters and gave them Humphreys'
schedule. Went over to phone bank and tinished up sample liallot for all [copy
illegible]. About 500 of sample ballots being mailed will be wrong took Mini
Polin to supper. He is a Humphrey delegate in the 4th ward. He told me he would
write me a letter of recommendation to California headquarters. I worked at
phone bank until 9 and then went to Adelphia and nosed around. The big discus-
sion of the evening was about money. Everyone is complaining because none is
being alloted for Penn. primary.
April 18. — Went to phone bank and worked with Polin in hiring of more people
for phone bank that will be put into operation Wednesday. I really lined up some
winners. The new phone bank operation is to call people to get oiit and vote. One
group will call negroes, the other group will call union members.
Polin again mentioned me as supervisor. I turned down pay. I don't want to file
taxes for working for Humphrey.
I wrapped up the sample ballot operation tonighr. I went by Adelphia and
action has begin to pick up. Everyone is rushing around and trying to do three
things at once. There is a definite lack of campaign material around headquarters.
I have not seen any bumper stickers or Inittons at all in headquarters here. This
could be an indication of how tight the Humphrey budget is being kept. One
advanceman for Humphrey told me he gets $30.00 a day to live on which isn't
money for an advance man to operate on.
April -Z.9.— Went to phone bank and check on my workers they were waiting for
me at the door. I got them to separate the union and negro cards into uneven
rationed stacks. The 60 people lined up yesterday did not show up for work only
24 came in today. The cards were so placed that anyone calling them could not
distinguish between a negro call sheet or a union call sheet. The call sheet is the
speech read to the person called.
Went to Adelphia after lunch and helped out with more mailings. About 6,000
letters were sent to the post office with no stamps on them. Went back to the
phone bank at 6 :30 and checked my people out. The night shift did not do any
better on personnel than the day shift. Only about 30 people showed for work.
Humphrey headquarters is upset and the whole mess is snowballing great.
April 20. — Went to phone bank. Humphrey came l»y and thanked all the people
this morning. Not enough people there to make calls so we worked on mailing. The
election day handouts were being mailed out. We only put about 20 pieces in each
envelope and used 40 cent stamps. This cost Humphrey a lot of money since the
letters were mailed to block captains and not to precinct captains.
After lunch Sam Parelman, National Coordinator from Washington came by
and talked to me about working in California. Parelman called Joe Carrell the
LA chairman for me and told him I would work in LA headquarters. Mike Polin
sent LA headquarters a big letter introducing me to them as "an advert Hum-
phrey supporter that could be trusted in any project." I guess I can infiltrate LA
headquarters now that all my recommendations have been turned into the LA
chairman.
We put some list on phone tables that had already been called so that repeat
calls will be made tonight.
Went to Adelphia Hotel and checked up on last minute moves. Humphrey is
relying heavily on the labor vote. 4 or 5 labor leaders were at headquarters calling
all over the state to get out labor vote. Humphrey feels that the labor people are
behind him but I think the labor leaders might be but the rank and file members
are for McGovern and Muskie and Wallace in large numbers.
Went back to phone bank and met my workers. I put them on the Negro
phone calls and had them recall people already called and give them the bit
about labor being for Humphrey. I checked out every table in the phone bank
and made sure everyone was recalling iieople that had already been called. I ]iut
the not called cards in the back office with the unmailed sami)le ballots. Phoning
will not be too successful because over 1/2 of the original names are scrnmbled
and the other V2 is missing. The mailing today was successful. The block cap-
tains will receive the mailing Monday that should go to the ward leaders.
4711
Went back to the Adelphia and nosed around. Everyone is busy trying to
catch up on work that was put off until last minute. All the big wheels in
Humphreys campaign are coming into Philly from Mass. The consensus is that
McGovern will win in Mass., so Humphrey must do well in Pa. A lot of the
Humphrey people are going to Michigan after Pa. primary. Humphrey figures
he will get a strong challenge from Wallace in Mich.
April 21. — Went to Adelphia Hotel and listened. Humphrey is coming back
to town tonight and will be in meetings with labor people again. If Humphrey
does not get the labor vote he will be in real trouble in Penn. Gertrude ask me to
come over to the hotel tomorrow and get 10 people started separating election
day material to be handed out at polls.
Had to leave Holiday Inn today and I am not sure where I will stay. Some of
the workers are staying in Adelphia and I might chip in with them.
April 22. — Went to phone bank and wrapped up the election day material
mailing. Went Adelphia and worked with two Humphrey men on last minute
phone calls. I called people and urged support for Jackson. The Humphrey peo-
ple are depending on the labor and Negro vote but Negro vote will probably be
light because Humphreys people are not impressing the Negroes with the old time
campaign tactics. The Negroes are tired of promises and want a man of action.
Many of them feel Humphrey had his chance and did not produce any results.
The Negro vote in North Philly is lining up behind Muskie and McGovern.
The election day material (poster, buttons, etc.) has not arrived at head-
quarters and Joe McLaughlin is trying to locate it with no success.
The phone bank workers were supposed to help tomorrow and Monday at
Adelphia but I told them we would not need them because the phone bank is
closed today. When I got back to Adelphia the man I was staying with told me
he is going to Michigan Sunday. I have not heard from Jason so I will go back
to Louisville Monday.
4712
Exhibit Xo. 234
Philadelphia is a large city with a varied voting population. Philly is not
growing as rapidly as many other US cities, but its political organizations are
growing, often to the dismay of the machine.
In Philly there were four different machines working. The first was a
desperation operation. The Muskie Machine. For Muskie, IVnnsylvania became
the last chance for a fading Presidential campaign. Muskies headquarters was
loosely organized as has become the trademark of the Muskie campaign. Again
there were too many chiefs and not enough Indians. The regular Democrat
organization backed Muskie but the mayor or head of that group, Mayor Rizzo,
was backing Nixon. So from the very beginning Muskie was doomed in
Pennsylvania.
The Wallace machine was made up of middle class working people who believed
in Wallace. Most of Wallace's people were dedicated and hard working. Wallace
shared the same money problem that began to plague Muskie — the lack of it.
Wallace did well in Wisconsin because his people were dedicated and hard
core Wallace followers who could not be discouraged.
The McGovern people in Philly were characteristic of his campaign. Mostly
young, mostly radical. His followers worked night and day and never gave up
the fight. When McGovern decided to concentrate on the Massachusetts primary
and give Pennsylvania to the taker, he hurt his campaign worse than he realized.
If he had not given up his workers would have delivered even more delegates to
his cause. This Pennsylvania decision could cost McGovern the nomination if
fewer than 1,000 delegates are needed to win the nomination in July.
The Humphrey headquarters was a study in the old time machine politics.
The leader in Philly was ex-mayor and machine boss Mayor Tate. All the big
labor and old machine cronies were allied behind the old warrior Humphrey.
Very few young people were involved in Humphreys headquarters. I infiltrated
Humphreys headquarters by complimenting the elderly oflBce manager Gertrude
Adcovitz into believeing I was a dedicated Humphrey supporter. Once I gained
her confidence by working like hell on menial projects, I was home free. It
has continued to amaze me how far you can go inside a headquarters by
just walking in off the street. Gertrude told me one night while we were
working late on our separate goals that "once in every campaign a great worker
walks in off the street that really helps in the campaign." I often wonder
how many great workers were also serving a dual role.
After two days at Philly I had complete run of the headquarters. I could
look into files and read anything in the headquarters. Just being around for
two days seemed to serve as my credentials. I was assigned to a phone bank
set up that was to supply 5.000 block captains to Avork for Humphrey. I worked
close with a candidate for alternate delegate Mike Polin. He was very gullible
and easy to fool. He supplied me with all types of information and served as a
cover up for most of my investigation.
While I was in Philly, I also infiltrated the national Humphrey movement. Sam
Parelman from Washington Headquarters came in one day and we talked. I
mentioned going to Los Angeles and right away he supplied me with names
and phone numbers for when I got to California. Everyone in Humphrey's head-
quarters was more than helpful. I was offered a job in headquarters for pay but
I had to turn it down because of taxes. Humphrey strategy in Philly was to
mobilize the black and labor vote to defeat any rival. Most top labor leaders came
out strong for Humphrey but there was wide spread dissention among the rank
and file union workers. McGovern picked up a lot of steam in Philly with the
black people. This support for McGovern was a direct result of grass roots
operation by the McGovern people. It seemed that the Philly blacks were tired of
promises and would look to a new leader for black rights. Humphrey was doing
well in Philly until he realized his money was running out. Everyone said Hum-
phrey had plenty of cash but that he planned to save it for California — the big one.
It was only the week before the election that Humphrey people realized that they
needed to spend more money or take a chance on losing Penna. Humphrey feared
a big rural vote but prayed for a large city vote to carry him over the top in
Penna. Well election day he could not get the labor or black vote out in large
numbers and those that did vote were not an Pro-Humphrey as Humphrey hoped.
The vote in Penna. did manage to force Muskie out of active primary races. The
real surprise to Humphrey people came after Muskie withdrew from the pri-
maries. The Muskie people did not come over to the Humphrey staff in force,
many people that had supported Muskie early in the campaign went to the McGov-
4713
ern headquarters to work for the new face. Something I noticed in Philly that I
think will effect Humphrey negatively in California is the new attacks on McGov-
ern. Himiphrey is doing what he said he could never do : Attack a personality,
McGovem, instead of fighting Nixon. Humphrey also is ignoring the new youth,
18-25 year old voters are not being sought by the Humphrey people as strenuously
as the youth i.s being sought by McGovern'.s people. A combination of the youthful
people, the unequalled dedication of ofiice and street workers, along with the new
coalition of blacks and labor voters will cause one of the Nation's strangest hap-
penings in history. In Philly McGovern stated what I believe will be his new
movement, he \Nill try to broaden his l)ase of support and modify and tighten his
policy so that it will not seem too radical for the American people to accept.
McGovem has started his big move in Philly, but I think it will end like the Gold-
water grass root movement in 1964. If you have to make too many radical state-
ments in order to gain attention of the nation, you cannot expect the facts of same
statements to disappear once you get the attention the statements are designed to
obtain.
4714
Exhibit No. 235
California is a result of all that has happened in the national scene this year.
Muskie was humed out and did not campaign. His organization went to all
other candidates but not in an organized manner that would help any individual
candidate.
Wallace had been shot but was not an official registered candidate. His w^orkers
were the stereotyped Wallace people, dedicated, spirited and sure that theirs was
the "true cause." Although his name was not on voting machines a very good
write-in effort was made that gave Wallace a good showing in a liberal state
where his name did not appear and where write-in voting is complicated.
Mayor Yorty of LA was an active candidate with little money and a lot of lip
for the two major candidates. His candidacy did little to hurt anyone except
Humphrey who needed more support in the LA democratic machine.
Jackson, Chisholm, Mink did little to sway the election and none of the minor
candidates had much of an organization. However, Chisholm did manage to
scare Humphrey into spending large sums of money in black neighborhoods.
With Humphrey's fading hopes in California came the fear of the staff and
contributors of money. Humphrey had just got a sound campaign plan started
that could have brought victory in California when the money stopped comingi
into his treasury. As the money stopped, so stopped the momentum. The momen-i
tum problem also hit McGovern headquarters. The hard working door to door'
youths became lazy, playful fools the last couple of weeks before the primary.
McGovern people became overconfident when they received public opinion polls
that showed McGovern leading in California by large iJercentages. It should
also be noted that part of the change in California results was due to the hard
line fighter image Humphrey took in the last few weeks of the campaign.
Humphrey angered many people with his personal attacks on McGovern. Most
California democrats wanted to beat Nixon and not another democrat. The
debates that were to save Humphrey turned out to show him as an old tired man
who was trying everything to win. The last desperation efforts by Humphrey
might have gave him personal satisfaction but to the public it made him seem
even more radical than the man lie was trying to beat.
The McGovern victory in California and his seemingly sure victory in New
York put him way in front for the democrat nomination. Several thihgs stick
out in my mind as trends. One, McGovern workers are dedicated and hard
working yet they lack the exi>erience to do the right thing at the right time.
McGovern will have a hard time uniting the Democratic Party because of his
radical statements made to get attention. These statements publicly made will
be hard to explain and even harder to deny in a November campaign that is sure
to become bitter and hard fought on both sides. Without party unity McGovem's
grass roots might never grow into a successful campaign. But besides all this,
the most serious problem to face the Democrats will be the indebtedness of the
Democratic Party. Throughout the campaign of the primaries, I have noticed it
has been cash on the line for all the Democratic candidates or no deal witli
suppliers and service companies. The lack of credit may well cause McGovern
the biggest problem in his quest for the Hill.
4715
Exhibit No. 236
I went to it for ten days to try and infiltrate McGovem headquarters. I
stayed at the committee hotel and the old man that ran the switchboard would
listen to all my calls. On the second day at the hotel, I gave Jason the number
of the pay phone in the lobby so he could call me without the old man listening.
To infiltrate the headquarters I planned to offer my sendees as a volunteer but
to insure a top level clearance, I called Jeff Smith, the office manager the first
day I got to UC and set up an appointment for the second day. I went to Mc-
Govern headquarters for my 10 AM appointment and announced myself. Jeff
couldn't see me so I asked to wait. While I was waiting I drifted into the back
area offices and started reading everything I could find. When the phones would
. ring I would answer them or listen in on other calls. Jerry Rubin called while
I I was there and several other people that were delegates. I can not help but
'. believe that Rubin is in an alliance with McGovem people to disrupt the Re-
publican convention. McGovern has several people lined up to say at hippie
colony in Miami to restrain the demonstrators. I went back to McGovern
Headquarters for several days carefully planning my visits when Jeff was out
of the oflSce. I would call headquarters and check on Jeff. If the person answer-
I ing the phone would say Jeff was out or busy I would rush over and wait around
; the headquarters looking for papers and memos. While I was there I learned of
McGovern's plan on restoring the California delegates the credentials committee
took away from him. After the California discussion, McGovern's staff started
I developing a get tough policy for the convention. The Daley Chicago question
was an example of the new policy. ]McGovern's staff refused to try for a com-
promise and they insisted on ousting Daley's faction — McGovern's manager —
Gary Hart told me, "to hell with Daley, the old bastard doesn't control lUi-
' nois anymore anyway." Things really began to heat up after the platform com-
mittee accepted most of McGovern's planks. Humphrey people gained the last
ditch effort by Jackson and Muskie to stop McGovem. The hope of the old
democrat alliance worked as the California delegate split. The opinion around
; McGovern headquarters was that with the California delegation in tact Mc-
i Govern was a cinch to win on the first ballot at Miami. McGovem staff felt
i that the nomination would be harder to get without the whole California dele-
I gation but that ]McGovern was going to be the Democrat nominee regardless.
I The stage was being set for a big fight in Miami. The press was also helping to
stir up McGovern's staff and as each day went by the staff workers were becoming
more and more angry at the anti-McGovern forces.
One thing was certain about McGovern's staff : they were young and inex-
perienced, mistakes were constantly being made and efforts to correct them
would take vast amounts of time. If it had not been for the huge voluntec"
army of workers nothing would ever get done. The simple campaign job lik'»
mailing and phone calls would take twice as long as it did by the Humphrey
pros. Most of the young McGovern i>eople knew nothing about campaigns, even
the top men on the staff were not experts. The door to door canvass and
street comer handout sheets were practically the only thing that anyone could
do without someone else having to redo it. The lack of experience in the Mc-
Govem camp was evident in the preconvention committee meetings when Mc-
Govem people could not even control the manner in which their own delegates
worded the motions and planks they presented. On one occasion a delegate had
to read a platform plank in order to say it right. Letters and calls were con-
stantly being sent out that were not authorized by McGovem. The grocery
associations letter is an example of letters being mailed that hurt McGovern.
Several types of literature were being distributed that were offensive to the
people they were mailed to. McGovern tried to have a representative in every
minority group or liberation movement. He tried to get each groups support yet
never once did he try to bring all the groups together as Americans or to sup-
port the democratic process. McGovern's plan seems to be to disgrace and deceive
the different groups into supporting him by proposing things he knows cannot
be put into effect by Congress or the President. When these things do not
happen McGovem plans to either blame Congress for lack of concem or to
blame the President for not enforcing the policy. McGovem will count heavily
on keeping the demonstrators divided and keeping dissent high among the
workers and citizens of the country. If McGovem is successful in calling for a
retum of old America through new progressive policy he will surely have a hell
of a job uniting the [copy illegible] would not pass because they are too ex-
treme. In every promise McGovem makes, he always saves an opening for
4716
excuses if the plan is not or can not be fulfilled. The Congress will become a ter-
rible group of scapegoats if McGovern is elected. This fear is shown by many
congressmen in Washington and that is why many democrats are so openly
opposed to McGovem. A McGovern nomination could mean a Nixon victory
large enough to defeat many Democrat congressmen and Senators thus giving
the Republicans control of Congress.
There are many parallels between McGovern in 1972 and Goldwater in 1964.
One of the parallels is the fear by McGovern over party Congressmen of its
possibilities in the November election.
4717
Exhibit No. 237
I went to Miami on July 5, five days before the convention started. The first
^ thing I did was to patrol all the hotels and see who was staying where and where
all the headquarters would be. By the time I got to Miami, the whole convention
seemed to depend on the vote on the California question, Monday July 10. By the
weekend I had a good list of the delegations and where they were staying. I also
had easy access to McGovern headquarters due to my association in DC. No one
knew my name or what I did but they all recognized me and did not question my
right to be anywhere inside the oflices.
On Saturday the big break came. I saw McGoverns youth coordinator, Tom
Southwick and he mentioned to me that McGovern was organizing his own secu-
rity staff. This was the highlight of the past four months. I obtained the name of
McGoverns top security man from Tom. I went to the Doral Hotel headquarters
and asked fur Tony Borash, head security man. I introduced myself and told
Tony that Tom had sent me over for security reasons to assist him in the office
security. Tony made me his as.sistant and we set up a security guard operation
for the headquarters. Once I was on the staff I had even a better chance to go
throughout the building. For three nights I was a guard on the penthouse floor
tliat McGovern was staying on. I had complete control of who was allowed on
the floor and how long they stayed. The secret service men assigned to McGovern
cooperated with me and if I said someone could not come on the floor, then they
were not allowed on the floor. I obtained a list of everyone on McGoverns staff
and what he did. I got copies of secret service clearance list and I had access
to all McGoverns convention operations rooms.
I was in the room where Frank Mankiewicz slept and Gary Harts room. I went
into the Senators room several times. During the course of my security duties
I met Pierre Salinger and his wife, Henry Kilmelman and his wife and all the
big time McGovern staff.
On Monday night I watched television with McGovern while the California
vote was taken. He was very nervous until after he won the California discussion.
It is amazing how easy it would be to be right in the midst of all the operations
and planning and yet be an enemy. The work I did while in Miami is probably
the best I did while I was on this assignment. The characters I have played in
the last 4 months are as varied as the locations I was in. Maybe someday soon
I will take the time to write about all the people I met and the things they
wittingly helped me do to obtain information that hurt their individual causes.
I
4718
Exhibit No. 238
Mar. 17 5^83. 00
Apr 14 983.00)
Apr. 30 683. 00 j
May 12 983. 00 \
May 26 <00. 00 (
June 16 487.75 '
June 29 500. 00
July 8 487.75
[sic]— 5,808.10
4719
Exhibit No. 239
intra-departmental correspondence
1.7
October 5, 1972
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Deputy Chief Louis L, Sporrer
Acting Director, Office of Operations
Commander G. N. Beck
Commanding Officer, Tactical Operations Group
PRESIDENT NIXON'S VISIT -
AFTER-ACTION REPORT
SEPTEMBER 27, 1972
On September 27 and 28, 1972, the President of the United States,
Richard M. Nixon, made several appearances in Los Angeles. This
report covers the significant portion of his visit during th^
evening of the 27th at the Century Plaza Hotel.
Type of Event
President IJixon was scheduled to be in Los Angeles on September
27, 1972 during a campaign tour. His schedule of events included
landing at International Airport in the early afternoon, being
transported to the Century Plaza Hotel by helicopter or motorcade,
and attending a fund-raising dinner during the evening at the
hotel. Information received from intelligence sources indicated
an anti-Nixon demonstration was planned for 1800 hours on
September 27, 1972 in front of the Century Plaza Hotel.
Information received from^ Intel 11 gence sources and from the
demonstration coordinators indicated a potential police problem
ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 demonstrators. The demonstrators
planned to rally on the UCLA campus at 1600 hours, march to the
Century City complex and picket the front entrance to the hotel
where President Nixon was staying. The affected area included
the UCLA campus, the route march along Westwood Blvd., southbound
to Santa Monica Blvd., then east along Santa Monica Blvd. to
Avenue of the Stars. The area of direct concern depended upon
the size of the crowd "and did include, at the height of the
demonstration, Santa Monica Blvd. on the north, Olympic Blvd. on
the south. Century Park East on the east, and Century Park West
on the west. The involved area included the hotel complex,
office and business structures along Avenue of the Stars, and a
major shopping center northwest of the hotel.
4720
The duration of the events associated with the Presidential
security at the Century City complex extended from 1300 hours
„^ th the arrival of the Command Post staff to 2400 hours when
the Command Post was secured.
Command Post Information
The Field Command Post and Staging Area was located in the
shopping center parking lot on Constellation Blvd., west of
the Avenue of the Stars. Units involved in providing security
and related police operations for this command post utilized
tactical frequency II. The Field Command Post complex included
Mobile I, II, IV, V, and VII supported by the light truck,
sound truck, mobile canteen, three buses and one "B" wagon..
The Field Command Post was staffed by members of the FCP
Division cadre activated for this event. All major sections
were operating with cadre members at 1300 hours. The CP staff
arrived one hour previous to the Field Task Force personnel
committed to field assignments or reserve force.
Manpower
The manpower committed to this event was as follows:
A. Personnel deployment by rank assigned to the
event :
Deputy Chief 1
Commander 1
Captain 2
Lieutenant 15
Investigators 11
Sergeants •- 53
Policemen . 315
Policewomen 3
Civilians 24
425
The Field Task Force, originally comprised of Metropolitar
Division personnel seventy strong, were supplemented by
personnel responding to the Tactical Alert initiated at
1830 hours,
crowd control
President's h
to crowd cont
hotel. Respo
size strength
levels, at th
ready force a
forces commit
hotel and adj
low-level pes
the Departmen
the right of
and the guara
demons trators
4721
The original force was
details during the la
elicopter at the rear
rol details at the fro
nding personnel were f
and stationed within
e north and south side
vailable for instant d
ted to crowd control a
a-cent -a.r£.as were di-rex
ture consistent with t
t to assure the securi
Century City guests to
ntee of the Constituti
and spectators.
deployed to provide
nding of the
of the hotel , and
nt entrance to the
ormed into platoon'
the hotel sub-
of the hotel as a
eployment. The
t the front of the
ted tt) mai ntai n a
he objectives of
ty of the President,
ingress and egress,
onal rights of
Under the Field Commander's direction, liaison was
maintained with Dr. Donald Kalish and other demonstra-
tion organizers to coordinate crowd control by demon-
stration monitors prior to police control tactics.
Upon the demonstrators and spectators departing from
the area, field strength was reduced around the hotel
environs and a motor officer platoon deployed within
the involved area to ensure minimal damage to surround-
ing structures.
Total manhours expended by rank during event:
Deputy Chief
11.0
Commander
15.0
Captain
16.0
Lieutenants
164.0
Investi gators
96.0
Sergeants
430.5
Policemen
3,217.0
Policewomen
31.0
01 vi lians
232.0
4.212.5
21-296 O - 74 - pt. H
4722
watch
hours
ripid Command Post Staff -
Emergency Control Center -
Field Task Force
1300 to 2400 hours
1500 to 2400 hours
1400 to 2400 hours
Q, Total manpower cost^.^j34,038^ 7B^
1. Straight-time cost (by rank):
Deputy Chief
Commander
Captain
Lieutenant
Investi gator
Sergeant
Pol i ceman
Ci vi lian
60.83
114.64
97.44
910.43
352.34
2,629.13
15,832.10
895.00
$20,891.91
2. Overtime cost (by rank)
Deputy Chief
Commander
Captain
Lieutenant
Investi gator
Sergeant
Pol i ceman
Ci vi 1 ian
195.53
150.50
146.24
1,109.85
693.79
1 ,576.86
8,903.10
371.00
$13,146.87
Loqisti cs
The following equipment was utilized during this event;
Mobile I
Mobile II
Mobile IV
Mobile V
Mobile VII
Microwave Relay
Trucks (2)
Sound Truck
Light Truck
Buses (3)
B Wagon (1 )
Canteen (1)
Mass Arrest
(1)
(1)
Kit (1)
4723
Expended items used at this event included approximately 50
plastic handcuffs and miscellaneous office supplies from Mobile
II. The mobile canteen dispensed coffee, soft drinks, and
doughnuts only. Total cost incurred in mobile canteen supplies
was $100.86.
Chronological Narration
On Wednesday, September 27, 1972, President Richard H. Nixon
arrived at International Airport at 1_550 hours to attend a fund
raising dinner at the Century Plaza Hotel. Security for his
party was provided by the U. S. Secret Service and a detail of
Department personnel from Metropolitan Division. The President
was transported from LAX via military helicopter, landing at
the rear of the hotel at approximately J61 5 hours.
By 1800 hours, anti-war demonstrators had begun to arrive at the
hotel, obtaining pre-deposi ted picket placards. The demonstration
crowd in front of the hotel increased in number and reached an
estimated size of 3,000 by 2000 hours. Department personnel
were deployed at a low level visibility status to assure the
security of the President, the rights of the hotel guests to
ingress and egress, and to guarantee the Constitutional rights
of the demonstrators and spectators. With the increasing size
of the crowd and depletion of available field forces, a Tactical
Alert was initiated at 1830 hours. Responding personnel were
formed into platoons and deployed at the north and south side
of the hotel, out of view and available to respond as needed.
By 2100 hours the demonstrators started disbanding and by 2300
hours their number had reduced to a strength of less than 100.
The Tactical Alert was cancelled and the Field Command Post
deactivated at 2400 hours.
\ ^ 1
Arrest Summary
The following arrests were made by Department personnel at the
scene:
One male adult for 148 P.C. Interferring
One male adult for 11910 H&S Possession of Dangerous Drugs
One male adult for 11530 H&S Possession of Marijuana
All arrestees were booked at West Los Angeles Jail.
I
4724
Damage
There were no reported property or vehicle damage associated with
the demonstrators. However, a minor traffic accident occurred
when the civilian driver of one of the LAPD buses (Shop #18105)
collided with a vehicle legally parked in the lot where the FCP
staging area was located. The collision was reported under
Traffic Accident Report DR# 72-350 3-66.
Operational Evaluation
Considering the amount of lead time, this operation was executed
in a well planned and successful manner. Department personnel
conducted themselves in a professional manner consistent with
Chief Davis' guidelines to maintain a low profile while maintain-
ing maximum security of the President and his guests. This
event had the potential of becoming a major confrontation. The
mature, professional attitude of the officers Involved, combined
with the cooperative actions of the demonstrator monitors,
ensured a successful operation.
G. LW. BECIC, Commander
Commanding Officer, Tactical Operations Group
4725
UU>0FavU£14)
INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
1.7
October 5, 1972
Commander G. N. Beck
Commanding Officer, Tactical Operations Group
Lieutenant B, E. Sanderson
OIC, UO Control Planning Section
1972 PRESIDENTIAL VISIT TO. CENTURY CITY
A time study of Department personnel deployed at the 1972
Presidential visit to Century City has been completed. The
attached addendum reflects the time deployed and salary
cost. The study indicates that approximately $34,038.78
was expended for salary costs alone. This represents a
deployment of 427 mandays, of which 151 were at an overtime
rate. The salary cost was computed at a straight time
hourly rate of $5.00 for a civilian, $6.70 for a policeman,
$8.55 for a sergeant, $8.49 for an investigator, $10.06
for a lieutenant, $12.18 for a captain, $14.33 for a
commander, and $17.38 for a deputy chief. The overtime
salary cost was computed at an hourly rate of $7.00 for a
J^ril^x* ^^0-9^ ^of" 3 policeman, $12.82 for a sergeant,
$12.73 for an investigator, $15.10 for a lieutenant. $18.28
for a captain, $21.50 for a commander, and $26.07 for a
deputy chief.
The deployment in the geographic divisions was increased due
to the President's visit to Century City and 408 hours of
holiday time was bought back as per Administrative Order
No. 9 of 1972 at a straight time rate for $2,822.40. In
addition, a minimum of $1200.75 in overtime was accrued in
the geographic divisions by personnel held over watch by the
Tactical Alert and not committed to the Task Force,
This total of $4,023.15 is in addition to the $34,038.78
expended for personnel tommitted to the Task Force.
B. E. SANDERSON, Lieutenant
OIC, UO Control Planning Section
4726
ADDENDUM
September 27, 1972
MAN-HOURS
Regular
Overtime
Rank
Hours
Hours Total Hours
Deputy Chief
3.5
7.5 11.0
XTTmmffnder
8.0
7.T) 15.0
Captain
8.0
8.0 16.0
Lieutenant
90.5
73.5 164.0
Investigator
41.5
54.5 96.0
Sergeant
307.5
123.0 430.5
Policeman
2,363.0
885.0 3,217.0
Ci vi lian
179.0
53.0 232.0
3,001.0
1,211.5 4,212.5
(71.25%)
(28.75%)
COST
Deputy Chief $ 60.83 $ 195.53 256.36
Commander 114.64 150.50 265.14
Captain 97.44 146.24 243.68
Lieutenant 910.43 1,109.85 2,020.28
Investigator 352.34 693.79 1,046.13
Sergeant 2,629.13 1,576.86 4,205.99
Policeman 15,832.10 8,903.10 24,735.20
Civilian 895.00 371.00 1.266.00
$20,891.91 $13,146.87 34,038.78
(61.37%) (38.63%)
4727
Exhibit No. 240
Lo$ Angeles Police Department
* DiEATH' REPORT
^ChlXitJ^j'^^'lit^ U)>u>-iftry^
C?'.-V^i?/Vj^Vxi
lOESCRTPTToNpx
I DECEAStD f / ,
"iCrsilTYINC MARKS ANO CHAHSfiTtBlSTlCS
itOTHINC AND JEWtUr WORN DATE/TLME: DECEASED DI5C0VER£0 | OATE/TIVt DEATH OCCURRED
^/er- /iirjTs -.s^es - tAi/oJ 9-/r--7t a^^S^W&'f^.oi-^^/oszE
' ~ REMOVED TO (Addrm) J
7
INVESTIGATIVE DlVISIONtSl OR UNIHS)
lED AND PERSONS CONTACTED
DECEASED S e'uSil.ESS ADOaESS
CODE: R — Person reporting death D — Person discovering deceosed I — Person identifying dcceosed. , W-^Witne
AJ/s/
fJAJ^'^JcP^O/^ ^U>/Z^
TtCEAiED S RESIDENCE ADDRESS
wr./ '- Ji — ■• ■ ■ .- *' — ;
L 0^ ULl.tA'>t.tl VtAit<<^»r)l. MIUOLL)
jO^
^>^, v-^7</.^J ^Axjl-
tOCATl0^4 OF OUURRt
^j?9 /VP' /^/£r^x ^^^
TION OF ORIGINAL IllMESS OR INJURY
DATE/TIMC ORIGINAL ILL /INJ.
OCCUPATION OF DECEASED
C/aJJ^aJO^
C£)£/3AJi*:£Ls
PROBlBLt CAUSE OF DUTH
^yt/C'ifJ:"' yA/Z^C^/r?'"^
;^-6^/ 63,?
/?(i^'/>-:>vi--
DATE/TIME RPIO 10 P D.
RELATIVES NOTUIED BY
REASON (Quarrel — illncii— rt
REMOVED By (njmt «, i;ml)__-
,i?£i>i*^^ £tPSff'//0'^oci£,€ /M<3/.rEl. ,^i2.SQM Jfjy.
CODE NEARESr RELATIVE
-R£LAT10t4SHIP
vmm
r^TTTTT
,yAJj^^ti}J^
!l
J3cj0
^
rl i'l
J>\ /P/^r6f^L 7B2^
\^^"'^f2.7"l<y
DOCTOR IN ATTENDANCE
BUSINESS ADDRESS
SOURCE OF CALL (HOW NOTIFIED AND BY WHOM)
COROMER-S CASE NUMBER: yx;"' /i^^O V
D6Y: y^. Z//^A/ (fCj^S^
OISFOSITION I ]^ KELEASED 10 CORONER
OF PROPERTY '
V, RELEASED TO RELATIVE
RECEIPT ^VES Q I
NAME
RECEIPT NUMBER
ADDRESS
(11 RECONSTRUCT THE ClfiCuiVISTANCES SURSOUNDIIJd THE DEATH 12) DESCRIBE PjlYSiCAL EVIDENCE, LOUTION FOUND ANO GIVE DISPOSJIION. ^ , ^ . I
^_ /^oJT/^f<^^-^77a^j
)
_j[_AOCI^r 10 HAL SPACE REOUIftfD. USE REVERSE SIDE
''SUPitiviVjVAppMUVlTiG' " "
CAf'i TlMt RErHomJf
iErHOoncco-invTsiori— aCP" //
«-!NfERVIlWINiiCEMCLil'S>ftt'l. NiV— OIVIS10.\— DtlAIL
PERSON REPORTING DEATH ISlCMAruR't.l
X
I CHECKED
I
4728
FOLLOW-UP REPORT
□ PROGRESS
Q MULTIPLE
V/9r7U
'^//(f/'m^—Z^
-^mm^
i^^^^?2iL
M^^ x:/^/^>^/ -^^V^a^/i
,„.,..,.,„.. .r^^U
2l_7:2jl6S:^43^
n "-a. Sheet
CASE STATUS 1 CLEARtD BY ARREST
2 CLEARED OFHER
3 REPORT UNFOUNDED
INVESTIGATION CONriNI;EO
PARTIAL RECOVERY I 3 NO RECOVERY | Value Recovc
DELETE FROM ORIGINAL RPT.' [ 4 TOTAL RECOVERY ] Del eted —$_
"hOsr Of RECOV
5 ADDITIONAL LOSS
Property Supplemental
6 DESCRIPTION CHANGE — Sheet Attached
LtlEO PHOPtR
ultlple Repo
<?I«HEN
CORRE
E. REStOENC
LOSSES ( Com
i riue
» 03 . 05 . 0 .
(5|M
' ^^yT.^^A^^uQ CcJiJi^t^crcy^ ^^-.^'^'s/r^^/'eT^ ^y
■) II o (;-;i 1
i^^U^t!/ -^^-^^f:--^. .
KOLl.(.W-UP RCrOPT
■^11'
4729
w
?
o f^
u
u, C^
»
< 1
_
o
.1 1
^
3
°
o
M
-
J
o
H
«
J
~
M
B
<S
-
";
«
;
^
■X
=
o
o
«
p
5
_
w4
•
y
Z Ph
o
' <<
o
» o
E
1 ^
^^
s ^j
o
G ^
u.
*■ \
iJ
^ 0
:3i
^ IS
'
0
>
o
1 ~"
s
<
z
£
;:
o
".
=>
S "^
a
■^
X
i
;to
i
°
tH
F"'
£.
? ^
DC
^*
|v
o"
*
5
= >.
5
^
(i!
r-^
Q
n 0)
- ^
ul
g
•
UJ
Z t.H
o
T—
—
S3
s
o M
^
^
cv
s ^
o
•
2
ON
= t-
1
a.
>-
'—
—
-d-
C 1
9
r^
g
~t
o '-'
a.
o
,
A.
^3-
'■*
2
" 1
g^
^ o
°
y-
>>
, 3
°
UJ
0)
o
;
o
r:
«■•
5
s
:g
£
cc
2 +J
=a
f
~
^
;c
S
c
*■
t
^
-
[^
—
tdU u
_f
^
*->
• -a
^'
^
(U -H <U CO . <U
k
u.
-J
♦*
a, 0) o, <u C
o
~
—
eTrr^
**
<
o ^ cc ^'^ <y
<■
«
Ifl
5
^
^ o ■ . o a,!::
5"
^ •
j-
0) '^■, 01 -P o o
■= P
~ l/A
—
> li bfl (3 u
n
" m
i '^>
o
G - ?H -H S ^1 -H
g
3 -H
°o
"^
il m ^ o ^ cj
—
= O
a.
W C ^ O +J 0)
^
3
N
'C
c; >~,-H U) X O -P +J Sh
■o
1 >•
; «
o
fMOOOOOtOOJ-rH
^
" P
2
5 i-'j
<s
iT j!i O CX> ^ O.-H -P
t
■H
3 O
I
* -H
d
i-ON<^v-i-T-T-r-t-
I b
- o
S f"
3
\ B
; "'
e
i-C\ir^^u~\vOt:---<»0N
•i CO
^ CO
" ...J
"'^
■^
■■
4730
WV-I of .?
14) Buulxisi I 13 Ke-rJcnro ' I 10 Slo
n»»*«r.Av, iu*H.T (cool.) 03 CIO
^lS!h
15 Mi^ellancou
16 No. Storias
/i^) Located
16 Neighbortiood
LOS ANr.FLES POLICE DFPAnTMFNI.^ j
BURGLARY REPORT (2iq^-f4
/
a nosrrt. |M,Com'l. D Sale LJ AlW
r 1./. J.
liiLiz^SiiriM^
Q. DVEH.SEEN:
7 US' l/j., \/''3jJ \r, "iZlJ I □ SUSP. SEEN: (.-( >J .'v
REPORTED: Q
7 /?
7^. r^ n .^^. n n n
COOE: V— Victim H-Person Reporting S— Person Who Secured Pr(
D-Person Who Ois
Name & Phones Listed Above
red CrinW ) , VV-W,lij^s;-' ll i, t'ay M.ipe-X
^JiA ■? A'h ?',i n-^ /-;4-;< ^US"
n
— i
'M.:^.,,
S-frX-l-
l2;\;:G,c:jl^i4^4.4ii^--
<^^ /t>^7\
300 Amputee
301 Deformed '
304 Facial Scars
3 3 3
5 s 5
305 Facial Oddity
30Z Tattoo f
308 Body Scars
312 Hair Type
313
2 7 2
319 Other;
,51j Instrtimonl Used
^^
look.
(f51^ Method of entry
53 fnuM HOO» w/..orE
54 MOnii THAN 1 Alt^MCT
(m} Visiliility From St.
i)^^
1.51^ Outside Lighting
W'
o .0...
'■.gJ Door
33 G«i'»'..(
34 CLASS
35 prT,ofl
4731
p.,.^^ot_7
BURGLARY REPORT
°"^3->^r/-6?:P
22 Putundcd to be I
K ..0.N0 V.CTiU
(2^ Suspect's Actions
Q MALKIOIJS ACT
CASE, PMLO<vcAS£.' ere
34 U5CD LOOKOUT
37 ISCO TOILET
•nO«C£ INTO
81 CI£F«:CATeO
43 OTMEW
24 Suspect VJore '
Cglj' Iml.cal.oniThat
—
■ 24 Ss'ia Jobs 1
.11 OUF.N [npt,E«i.L,r..v(
75 «Yvioi..:iOC.-/«.
1
1
0 "'•—■•-•■
^^5^ Evidence
!i
25 FAofllC SMEARS
26 BLOOOSTAINS
30 OIHSR:
22 Victim Was f
51 ABSINT.AOV, IN PA>I«
54 AT EUNEnAl
1 .,
(S) Telophon.
24 Solicilcd/OHcrcd
Jl OOSAI.ONS
38 oil PMO-E^oriei
:15 €M^O»M£NT
25 Force
41 .BurAL ASSAULT <*
22 Veh. Involved
25, Lights
26 Misc. Sex Acts ,
M THBSAItN TO KlLt
70 OTHSB:
90 Shots Fitcd
^^Oj^zr /^<^-3
CLCAIi^O HY AriHCSl I lYf
- /9'?Ji f /'/-i-i Ij-.-^.f l.o\('.M'?0 "^ l^-h->';
4732
ITEM
NO. QUAN
re Dccortmcnt
Tjib I TYPruf HI PORT
CONTINUATION SHEET
^i-y/S9 c^yur'O
>ArA^/Q^
(C^c'jO /t-(-rlt^k"^^so/^ 5(^s/>5 OlfiT A^fT ^OM '/so
/O- F}]/<M^ ^ ^lA^f'^ tjj/ZA^ S ^/k) A&iiT 5£caJ ^
^u/OA>>/Oto ti^Oi^ Ti'f<£ A6c:.^)7'/aAJ t^cO/-)-^/)^ ^^kivcoi^
f^uTT/AJh -W<f5 f^/je.^ our. 0/-'<^A^ cy /f^^/y- F&A
Sa^t^^ I Susies &>G/f , _. . '
Susies a}P>TcL^^O Pf^/iS'^ -rM£ ///}5P G/y^ /'Aon /f
/"/^ 7/U^ Si/'Aj)/AJ^r> /j/JO ftenoije^c> t'lOK :/:7.eA/s .
■72) ol^ Pu/Oc/'/cZid A //£>A^ //-J Yz/aB /^/?c.c o/^/)-
7yAf£:-c^/^ac/k.T//-fi5LJJi//£/J /r/-^^/(-^r.<i) syh/'pi^O >^ _ .
u^/// //-^ -f^'/e /'r^o/'^L ^>F S'J.<ui^^i ^p^&Ac ■ Op^vO^ />
6J^ J/,S.<'^/.'-ii^ 5 ^''SPS-fZ/A:^ //Ay^r,'YA^Sj> 72>.,^A6ojO
-77/iS SA:<rsr/''/X AO^A>/ /^ Af A ^^ /)■/'. •■^i'-^^ (^uTSAj/y 7?/i"
■•:i(^f)-/.iAJA pKAA'BQ . Sc/SA T^^^/O LIS//UU A)- /a'SS
7/A^/Ad>^./iAoA/ yr L'£^/i ^p/^P Ai 5'^/\/^i:> ylc^PY
A/^o/f -,7:f.^ d-OA)AA a) /Oh A:/xJr£A€b JJ^AP A>77j>CpL
/V/^A/^ A?A^ 7^/^^ S/aP/)/aJ^ P////-Y .ccj.^fo Ja^/aJ^
A^^/iJ'fPsi) jff/ y//A^ A^/AOy'J /'^>/t AkA$^,iA/iA7'' CO/Z/f/TTiA.
5'(/6p T^^A.) o<.ja:/V7' Ab 7/U:' /-AAA cii^yrP/P^
fhA-T/OA.) A/" 7 A/ A ,^'/'///v,i)/-'V/4- x/^t.'Z) ^ST A /yP'-7.
Sit5pS y//A£/^ A^Aj/''r A^Uz Sat/^O/yJA /SP Jr/PP
Da^ 7a^A^ Ay//JA7
II ^tMm^J ^fM is rfimlrfd. ii« ..■..■»( iMt. (A'-''^~ A)
COHilVjUATION ?n';
SERIAL NliVBl
GT
4733
SE.KIAL NUMSLRS
IS /il^//0O) <
[O/j^ S/z'/) j^y //i.uj^ .dilrfs
y^/Z/^tL . a c£A}£_
If MOat SPACC LS RCQUIKll), USL CfiNT. Sllttr, Yii
4734
FOLLOW UP REPORT
[I}-rto(
[t] MULTIPLE
□ SUPPLEHENTW.
m/-2:<
'j/ iC/t
^r7~;AL ^/ry /!)<sr^So7z>^
^//^^ 72.-MU^
f-lM.O.
'—'Ota
CASE STATUS /p CLEAREO BY ARREST Z CLEARED OTHER
REPORT UNFOUNDED
INVESTIGATION CO^irmuCD
PARTIAL RECOVERY 1 3 NO RECOVERY | Value Recovered/ 5 ADOITICMAL LOSS _ Protierty Suppl
DELETE FROM ORIGINAL HPT.' 1 ^^ TOTAL RECOVERY ] De\ elotl —i ^ ^J0,_OZ' 6 DESCRIPTION CHANGE*—' Sheet AHached
^£^c^ /r^/-*js
V/ g/?^<
^5a;
^cJ_^
VMiutJ
Pr-
(p-Ki,
g£^
6-4
y&Q
;r
/IlC
/i^iT'/ f^/CT'
9?'/oS^M
2.6.6 2.0C0
' ^SO ^^ -^ ^•V^'J^^T.
C/ry
i^ A^y^/;^j:^/,j=rr: /•?/ J^/f^/^. yyi/^^fKC/ A^-/_
^^ ^-^^-//D ^/y>^Ad^x^.v
L<^2_.^<^
//V T-Z-T^
^^^.^JT ^ /^ >J^£>LMz_^S-^
j^25SViiS^_
/^y^ilSjL ^_<fS£Zc^
±2__'^k5.i^2^:o_
J<^ ^/^d$_£Z4,.:2^2^a,
.S<s?=t:yZf=r ^//£' /^^-e: Dfrpy <c<:>ocjo 6^7" /^^/-sr /^?^csr c^^-^^t j
ZzC^-f^^^'^'fl'OEL
'i-t^ ^^c£'d:^ tJ i£?^Y O^ /:i>.<2^y^j^-'<-7~y
•^7'Ppi^. (ljr\/ Z>/3T;c,f,^ura'-'-.^.
.e
£->i^y^ic^^Q,?jr_'/:_
FOLLOV;-l|P Hti'ORT
1.1 'ri I
4735
F0L'L0rt'u|5' REPORT
P PnOCRESS
Q MULTIPLE ^^ SUPPLEMENTAL
9//P
91-
^>;:a>^> Cj/r^/\^/^r (3d.
aw
iszssi^si'
•C-*n3e JuD- [h.n,,
7
I 1 A»».,t,^^
CASE STATUS 1 CLtABET) BY ARRE3
2 CLEARED OmER
3 REPORT UNFOUNDED
4 INVESTIGATION COMTINUED
1 PARTIAL RECOVERY I 3 NO RECOVERY | Value Racovl
2 DELETE FROM ORIGINAL RPT . I 4 TOTAL RECOVERY I Deleted— $
i(r>'
DDlTIOfJAL LOSS
Property Suppl enontal
-roper,
I 6 DESCRIPTION CHANGE Sheet Attached
!7 noT "bootB'jr '
C^"'^
^Hfc^
^EL^
03-05 6. (Sid
sll/se OrijJnjI
X^
*«• o
(i^^//s/^/iS' y 6S^W^«^ <;^^ fct?U^VA/5o5'.— -,_^ --
/ /•/ ^^iV£er^£^4L^ /^ &>sra fossi.
^SMMi^^^^- ^i^CS^ikiS^
OJ.M.O I?/??)
FOLLOW-lIf' RKTORT
._-«l
4736
CONTINUATION SHEET
^ I /<i(MoiM iJ-^/^.
IDR,
or-y^}^ 7T-/S /^liCLoe^J^^d /%^c.€7i3 Co^f'T^'''"'^
T'oO.' or.
T'O. 00
J'O. Ofti
o<b.r"
^:.'»=i?.iD.' 0
vi . J 'DO;
li
*•"<..■> '
DO
CONTI NU AT iorrsTiLE-r
^iV
r7'o.
4737
Los Arwiclr'; Pol.cr Dcportmcn
■ PROPERTY REPORT
I c
CAkM
a
R[i.L.tN(.L AOORrSS ■
3. -y^v? A
V/l^'}
/JcylT
,S j^, Joncc'-' evidence I
CHECK
ONE
ONLY
KG. nfCORO P6(
SMtSTlES t
_— , /3 /-J . ,
/^isr^i^iao-.
BESIOENCE *DDSBS
niNC TO POLICeOEPT.
^/"^^S
lAlE i TIME TMiS RCrORr PROP EKD- AT O^TL SXO-
UVms. ^ I '5 ^^"^ STOLEN PfiOPCRTV?
NTO POLICE CUSTfiOY - LOC&TiON ■ CIIV OR REPORTING. OIS
'9//f//'/l- /fop/^.fS- 4^4- //'^ /A/^O'^W <^^
■ ■■- t....^ij TYPE Of PROJ^^Jlf j;,-//5~i
//^^/> /ir73
EN PROPERTY?
TYPE CF PREMISES
OIV. RPIC.
_<2^55v€C^
i - Photo - S 1-0. - Oltipr
TE CRIVE OCCURRED
D I D I D ! D \/-/<-^/? '7//S'/f77^ Pi??m/>/yL , ^Jz-^r^ ~//'
^
Scpo^otc reports ore required for coch clossificotion of property: Evidence: Book to Arrestee. If none'. Book to Victim, If neither, Bcok to Oept.
En^plnyce (Book os Evidence if connected to Crime, Possible Crime, or Arrest.) Non-Evidcncc: Book to Fmdcr, Depositor, Owner or Person in !qy/.
fut possessiorv
/7 77//.'^ 2^Z /^6C^: c/^y^i^iO /yC^^^ ^^/^^ ,^i), ^.-V.a'VS d^
I CITY OF LCS AriGEl
ERTY (3) &IVC ADDRESS, Tfr/.E ANO/nR
IF NOT LISTED CR OTHER THAN ABOVE
OF lOENTinCATK
\ CASE MUST BE COVERED 8Y CRIME AND FOLLO'.V-UP REPORTS (2) DESCRIBE CIRCUMSTA'JCES RESILTII.'G IN BOOKING OF THIS PSCP-
ERE CP'JCERNED PEflSONI<
OTHER WARKS
SERIAL NU'.IRERISI
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
//
,^.r;l^^^-:?^;,. A/^. Srv'T^^^y ^.^ .
<f €^//rJ;'' -^x<i?5i-:'^';-^lC' ^ - . -
OAIE^'llME OfPPOnurED- OIVIMoli . CEE.TK ^^ /f\jJb /^L'/'S . INDEXED .^ p tl CHUKEO
csopizRrV ((tPOftT
INDEXED ,- ^ p M CI11V.KE
21-296 O - 74 - pt. U -- 24
4738
■p
/
n-jOM ■■.*'. NO
l'« NO.
:j/j^/lZi^ [-/;<'- 65-/ '-, 3';'
7/. I ■z-y^^cy^^'^^ ^
Co i/.S^Jfh^-C
y
/'l.V^'//>V^/ /i£^ i^'-i>>/ ^^'af-^r^ ^>yV?i£
\J
/y:^'^'7s ^^ /?t/'-^^ ^-? <i^'^^^-/-'Vc£=v>? ^xy /;25->v
T)^
ir i.-.,r-r '.r.-.cc r. r^coLiiTn. r.r '."Mr Miirx, isoio
/7 :^^ .^^•[v
4739
Los An^cIrs Police Drpcrtmrr
PROPKRTY REPORT
flRCftRM
n
ifSiotNcr APor.:ss
■_ 4';'9 .//o.'./^ji^^rX ^^i^-'-
lESIOENCE ADOnESS
vESIDENCt ADORCSS
WE A TIME THIS RLPORT PROP. EKD. AT ^t.-[J?.r.Xi DATE h TIME PROPERTY lAKtN IMU POLICE CUSTODY - LOrATION^lTTc'R*'RtPCK:ir;G CIST
, //^^!./> ^.^7^' I l^v^s D
rcsiocnce: address
lis STQIEN PROPERTY'
D
^^53?/^-^'
■ S ID. - Other
Scporofc I
En-iployec (Bo
^\H\u\u
liHG RECORD PAGE f
PERSON CROPERTY BOOKED TO U .n' -l.rU-middlr) .
VICTIM OT-C*VhEfVS-*(A^K:
5 -^^ir-itr
PERSON REPORTING TO POLICE DEP
-mm
wm\\\
DR I
UK o„n,,c r^us p|-^-„;^
^-r/wifyTS"
TYPE Of PROPERTY
Mot/S^ - JiZ.-/ ^ g I- -T
y/i^i^.
OIV OR CITY i DATE CRIME OCCURRED LlSf ANY CON'.TCTING REPORTS BY TY^ & DIV>y-/'.—
li classification of property: Evicfcnce: Book to Arrestee If none. Bock to Vn
:ted lo Crime, Possible Crime, or Arrest.) Non-Evidence: Book to Finder, Deposit
' or LOS AtJGELES EACH CASE I
IIZE A\'0 DESCRIBE ;
SERIAL NUMBER
riRCUMSItrJCES RESULUNG ir
INVESTIGATORS
'^•S/?7/c C^ry '' 0^ /T^r „__
Sa\ /^/'^.'P^i^^o/Uo 0/G-'<lA'.^,r77trS_
^^(>fc C.'M/Zyi^i£?^ ^^'^CH^Z^__ ^ _
..^.rK'-c^ /'y3'''^^'/-<^/ /^(t.,'4Cf] .
T'/'i^rT /f'Ro^, ^ ^
/
3
y
/
"7
3
/
/
/
/
yAyc^^jry/Cr^rrro^J d>/^_ ^^r^^ s^^-iJi^ ^^/■S'^t^^'i^r'-
^Li^ y^i:?<:f^ /^<JaJ40 J3y -i^i^^ ^'-iAiJ 6-fcrsf /
ri;a«HNG EMPLOYffiS) ■ sevno - oiv - PH
CrrERVs-iJ^ApVcoVTHr, " SERUl
iO'.Tr...1,Mt MMiionrfti. DIVISION -citRK / 4- - ' ,- '^ ' <^— ' • t -^- .;.') ,0 ,^l'
n./^. V,
frtSON REPORTINr. (S.<jn^i
^i^ori !:ty Rr-.poin
4740
l>i;0."tR1Y KCrORT
ij^:
1 T4^1/}ji> .^li££dX-ylt&^
kOICtNit ACLMtSS
l[ * IIVI IMIS RCPORT
//■oA MT^
j.U^d
DSir EKO
IS TrtIS STOLEN PR&PERIV
,ij yj^i
■ S'^.l d)rv /:,/sr,ZJ:^oro£..i:
3 ^SiO^^/tr"
rtRSON RfPORiiKS 10 pii;i";cf ctp'i-
' ^rc^
tS. THC-S
CHARGE
n^.O, No.
iirO WUICE CUSIODY . lOCATICN - ClIV CR RfPORIl\G OIST.
»»rr^PJ?W?!' ^ TYPC or PROPEaiv "^ "j oiv. pptc. " '
'/^y/'^'^' .5^'j^T'ain l--/-^//'-^-''jJJ.''. V/P'"-:' .Pc^/J/r^ i ^-g"? /^.--^^ ' -.VL.
Scporotc ri-portj ore required (or eoch tloijilitolion ol property: Evidence; Beck. ; r A,r.;-;£. If r.onc, t^ook to Vicl.m. I! rcilhcr. Beck ~c Oi'.-.
£:T;l.>ee (l-cck as tvidorcc r( connected lo Cc.mc, Pojiible Ct.me, or Arri-st.) Ho.nf;i.;.i'.;-i>;c: Book to Finder, Depositor, 0>.ncr or Person in lo..
Pnm^ - r>.3i^ - S.i
ill If sioLC% ii; ci:v of lcs /.'.gcies each cas-
:i6
/
. ' I V CSIVE ASO fCLlC-
ir not MSiF." ' liiV'li'- A-^ ' ... — •.: .■.■...;, .if^.: .m.l >
.aCKISE CIBCtM^IA'ICES SES;'!.
t:C CONfACtCO BV OAY ILVEbllC
SLI.IAL f;jr.;L,£Ki AND ClutR
/
' /
/•^^Y^ (^ '^''^^ '^^ y'X'^^ ) -- -
Ci>^y^-^^ t^//?' ^O.^^/L:'^-^ 7~//^'^ ._..
\Ji_JJ2l''C C^ry " «5>-/-~rf/;ri
J-^'oX ~?y^7^^/^~S^/--^- c>,"'x^;^/,r /7Tr^- ,_„._.:
,c?Oi./(:_ CW^.y;/;,..{£?^ /'l-'^--rcn'(^Z^ L. "'.... ". _
y/^^S /(^io.'J .
•-^■(a<^ ^C , -. -.- - - - . .
/^o^:>
/3(^y'-''-^^i-'^ '^V ^A<Le"
^'y^rj- vvi^-i
y . ^ - y^
'•>iim;c I'-tPiovrctS) -
.^^-vj^><^^-
!'^3"i:V '?/i'--'^^-
^.d-
t'KoriRiY i;rror,c
i:i]z::r
4741
r.-/ c.V- T is 'y'i sicLir. proi>CRir? ^
/;/•,.//)_ A--;^j; |Wv» Dno Du^,:>.oaa
VsCEAilE CMVt f'..i:i - rtclo - 5 1.0. - Oir.tt
/.— ■
fcfSfotN:.; ACDSESS
,ir i ;ivE i>i:s Kirom
-\ .!,„,
r^' , "
VlCIlM "(i'""- "■■■■* ••^■■'• -•
tPSOti RfPOKMMG TO POUC? DCri. (L.n
'..■:o!:-.'^-S,
RES PMO'-E fU^ '.ijf.r
[•;.:f t TivF F-Pi-PcRTY :.\KF,\ IMO POLICE CUSroCV- LOCATION • CMV OH Rf?ORTir.C UiST.
Tll't Cf PKf.^SLS
t:$'<'^->:v;^-^:i'/j/:lx;cg' /Z^-v^>
■<.--:d
DIV. Oft CITY .
'/L OCCURRED LIST Af.'Y CUMJc;CTlS& RIF^ITS BY TYFE A :
Stfortt,: rppotlj o<c fCqiMtc
Emp:j,<-. iBsck OS Endoncc
!u[risi«Mon^
PoLk lo vTclin. If nc.lhcr, Tj^:T. I3 D.-;
C5c!i cicssificorion of properly; Evijcncc: G.'.'l; lo An
r.rccted lo Cr.n-c, Po^siWc Cri-ii!:, nr Arrpsl.) Non-Evidence: Ccck to Finder. Dcpos.lof, Ownor or Perscn in Ir,
7
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/^
'^^ y^^:^ej^-^-^^-^'^ -<^^
'■2 'Ox--.
?\yOViV.-,'; vxiOi
4742
a
■7
^
'^
/
/
lo
/
'^!
/
yy^
/
'MGrSo I TYPE OF REPO«r . ^
BOOKINr. NO , DR '10
rJ
SERIAL Nuvarnii
/^>^9
2^_. ..
(/J JyinC C^yy^J/c'/oy ^ . '.
2. U^/ryy.c'7^, /^y^y/^ ^<<<v,Vv-<->v:-,:.'^ -^/-^(^ . /^^''^'"'^5"
(/) /y.s. ^^y-i^-f . . . ,_..
/ ^X"/ /^r-/<^7?/9'<i. r^Uc ^ ^/c:yy7< ^i.i^/£fS j^'^y^^/'^
7yryi^<^yr:>^fC^ /S7?L -i.tyG'c.o ^^y
-y^l^r/^y'iy^y/C A^y?C>/c^ (7^?-c<^ I^S-^ :l.i^
^Ct/c:- c^rE (i^C-^ry- SiJUS ... I
77 fy. Cypy^^^'^y^^ (Zp >v^<c ^^a>^ y^c-ya ^<2?^>r-
yyr^y='iS ^^ 7^/'*^ ^-? c^,vyV'?/<y^?2? ^^ z/Sr^V
■ voRt srAcc r? uroumro, L'sec5NT. st,rtT. iso'ii
/7 ^r ^o
4743
Exhibit No. 241
GEORGE MCGOVERN
1i}Zrxiieh ^iaies Senate
VASHINGTON. D.C.
October 10, 1973
Dear Senator Montoya:
I have examined the picture of Michael McMinnoway
brought to my office by a member of the staff of the
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign
Activities.
I do not recognize either his appearance or his name.
No one resembling this picture was in my room in the
Doral during the evening when the California challenge
was being considered at the convention or, as far as
I know, at any other time. Since there was a Secret
Service agent stationed immediately outside the door
of my suite whenever I was there, and since even
close members of my staff were cleared to enter only
^vhen I wanted to see them, the sort of access he claims
would have been impossible.
With best regards, I am
Sincerely yours.
n|>Lv. A"' /ci-vwu-^
George McGovern
Honorable Joseph M. Monto
5229 Dirksen Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Subscribed and sworn to, before
>. thi8.ZC_fday of ^'^ - 19>^
My Commission Expires
474t4
Exhibit No. 242
VOTING RECORD ANALYSIS OF SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE
The following comments are drawn from Senator Muskie's voting record since
1963. The record demonstrates, at least until 1969, a tendency to vote with pre-
vailing opinion, unwillingness to cpst votes against the established (vested) in-
terests of society, and a deep desire to avoid personal battles or intense
controversy.
National Secueity
Senator Muskie consistently opposed or refused to support efforts to reduce
both overall and line-item reductions in both defense procurement authorizations
and defense appropriations. Senator Muskie repeatedly votes against line-item
reductions in such things as the B-52 and B-58 bombers, but also against limiting
funds for such white elephants as the RS-70 bomber. His record shows that he
consistently refused to oppose military proposals even into 1969 when he voted
against Melntyre and Fulbright limitations on ABM authorizations and for the
overall ABM Sentinel system.
This record of support for the military extends to international relations
where he not only refused to publicly oppose the war in Indochina until 1969,
but where he has repeatedly and consistently opposed cuts in American military
assistance. The final indictment in this area is his refusal to support Senator
Clark's attempts to increase the security of the funding of the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency.
Senator Muskie's record displays either a provincial ambivalence to the mili-
tary impact on the national interest, endorsement of militarism, or a failure to
perceive the impact of the military establishment, its activities on American life
and on social progress, judged from the point-of-view of the progressive wing of
the Democratic Party.
The Draft
The draft was a major issue in 1967. Senator Muskie opposed Senator Hat-
field's proposal to gradually introduce a volunteer army and his proposal to
extend the Selective Service Act only 2 years instead of 4. He also opposed in-
troducing a lottery system of random selection and abolishing student deferments.
Envieonment
Senator Muskie's voting record on the environment is blemished first by his
strong early support of the supersonic transport and his opposition to proposals
to reduce funding for the development of this SST. It is further marred by his
high absentee rate, so high that he did not vote on the 1966 Wild Rivers System,
the 1967 Great Salt Lake National Monument, the 1967 Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act, the Williams amendment to the 1968 Land and Water Conservation Act, or
the 1969 Padre Island National Seashore Act.
Beyond these shortcomings, Senator Muskie's record on pollution measures
before Congress is about the same as Senator McGovern's. He can be criticized,
however, because he is so much praised. Part of this criticism lies in the story of
what has happened in Maine, but part lies in his record in Washington.
It is virtually impossible to bring legal action for pollution under the measures
he has proposed and had enacted into law. They rest on the questionable ideas
that individual harm must be proved and associated with a single pollutant. In
addition. Federal emissions standards have been avoided in favor of regional
standards and evasions of intent.
The measures have protected, in some senses, and been supported by the in-
dustries they sought to control. This alone throws doubt on their potency. The
measures that Senator Muskie has brought to the floor have never been con-
troversial enough to pass or fail by narrow margins. This may. in part, be be-
cause of the Senator's constant cooperation with Senator Randolph, chairman
of Public Works, his cooperation with industry, and his desire to avoid a fracas.
All this may be desirable in a legislator and the Senator desen-es credit for his
early attention to pollution matters. But he has failed to provide progressive,
consumer-oriented leadership in the field of the environment in recent years ex-
cept when his congressional jurisdictions liave seemed challenged or when the
President has seemed about to get the credit for action that Senator Muskie
coveted.
4745
Space
Senator Muskie has voted consistently against reducing expenditures on the
space programs. This applies both to line items, such as the Apollo program,
and to across-the-board cuts, such as those introduced by Senator Proxmire.
Urban Problems
Again Senator Muskie's record is flawed. He voted against the Urban Mass
Transit Act of 1963 and paired against it with Senator Edward Kennedy in
1964. This is somewliat ironic given his charges of March 25, 1971, that' the
Nixon administration was hypocritical for consistently opposing urban mass
transit.
Congressional Ethics
Quite surprisingly, Senator Muskie has consistently voted against resolu-
tions and amendments supporting disclosure in full of income, gifts, and pro-
fessional associations and barring associations with lobbyists. Key votes oc-
curred in 1964, 1967, and 1968 and on all votes, Mr. Muskie supported secrecy
and vested interests. These are among the few cases in which Mr. Muskie has
been willing to stand among a minority and lose.
Education
The only flaw here comes in Senator Muskie's 1965 opposition to funds for
the National Science Foundation. This is one area in which it is hard to argue
with the record of the Senator from Maine.
Health
Again it is difficult to fault the Senator from Maine, although he did vote
against a Ribicoff amendment in 1965 to remove time limitations on hospital
and nursing home care.
Civil Rights
The most serious weakness in the voting record in this area is the Senator's
1965 vote against Edward Kennedy's amendment to ban the poll tax as a pre-
condition for voting. This seems out of place in the record of a civil libertarian,
but the rest of his record is quite in line with what the progressive wing of the
party should expect of its candidates.
Economic (Tax) Issues
Again Senator Muskie is surprisingly weak. In 1964, he voted against raising
personal tax exemptions and limiting the reduction in corporate taxes and
against directing regulatory agencies not to slow the "flow" of tax benefits to
consumers. He also voted against forbidding financial institutions from deduct-
ing interest on loans used to biiy tax-exempt bonds.
In 1968, he voted repeatedly to support the surcharge for individuals and
voted against the McGovern-Church ingenious excess profits tax substitute. More
surprising, because of his switch to a far more liberal voting record in 1969,
was his vote for extending the 10 percent income tax surcharge as requested by
the administration.
Agricultural Issues
Senator Muskie comes out with as much mud on his face for his votes on agri-
cultural issues as for his votes against congressional ethics. In 1964 he voted
againt forbidding the Commodity Credit Corijoration from selling wheat at less
than 115 percent of support price. Such measures are necessary if price supports
are to work to the benefit of farmers. He has continually, however, and incon-
sistently with the former vote, voted against all and any limitations on price
support payments. Tliis has been true even of such loose measures as limiting
payments to $100,000, in which case they really have no meaning anyway. Fur-
thermore, this pattern has continued into 1969 when he voted for striking House
language in the Agricultural Appropriations Act that limited price support pay-
ments to $20,000.
Again it seems that Mr. Muskie casts votes that favor the rich and powerful,
the vested interests, the established and the affluent.
4746
Commentary
These votes say little about the man by themselves. Together, however, they
give no indication of any depth of feeling in the fight for the rights of deprived
minorities, no leadership in the areas of massive government spending and social
vested interests, and no intuition for the evolving issues of society and politics.
In short, they indicate no leadership and no will to lead.
4747
APPENDIX II
MUSKIE VOTING RECORD
The following votes were cast by Senator Muskie on bills and
amendments recorded in Appendix I of the Memorandum on
Senator McGovern's Voting Record. They are in the sanne
order and classified in the same way. Only those bills from
that memorandum are recorded on which the Senators took
opposing positions, except for selected cases in which ab-
sences are noted because these are consistent with a trend
of disagreement between the Senators on some issues.
MUSKIE VOTING RECORD INDEX
TOPIC
National Security
Draft
Environmental Issues
Space Program
Urban Problems
Congressional Ethics
Labor
Education
Health
Civil Rights
Economic Issues
Consumer Issues
PAGES
1-4
4
5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-10
10
10
10
11
12
4748
INDEX (cont'd)
TOPIC PAGES
Agriculture 12-13
Crime 13-14
Indian Problems 14
Ship-building Issues 14
Gun Control 14-15
Miscellaneous 15
4749
; APPENDIX
MUSKIE RECORD ON NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES
1963 (88th Congress, First Session)
H.R. 7179 Defense Appropriations Bill
Saltonstall amendment to reduce funds for pro-
curement by $157m. or 1% No (F 43-45)
McGovern-Randolph-Morse -Nelson amendment
to reduce funds for procurement, research,
development, testing and evaluation by $2. 2b.
or 10% No (F 2 M)
Proxmire amendment to strike $60m. for
development of Air Force medium range
mobile missile No (F 5 ,•?, )
1964 (88th Congress, Second Session)
H.R. 9637 Military Procurement Authorization
McGovern amendment to reduce by $52m.
funds for accelerated development of advanced
manned bomber No (F 2 0-64)
H.R, 10939 Defense Appropriations Bill
McGovern amendment to reduce $46. 7b. ap-
propriation by 4% across the board No (F 5-78)
Nelson amendment to reduce $46. 7b. appro-
priation by 2% across the board No (F 11-62)
H.R. 11380 Foreign Aid Authorization, 1965
Morse amendment to require special prefer-
ence in military assistance to those covuatries
with military establishments no larger than
their economies can sustain No (F 17-39)
I
4750
Appendix II, page 2
1965 (89th Congress, First Session)
H.R, 10871 Foreign Aid Appropriations
Morse amendment to reduce Latin American
military assistance $25m. No (F 41-43'
Morse amendment to reduce by $292m. funds
for military assistance No (F 30-5(
Ellender amendment to reduce by $100m.
funds for military assistance No (F 3 5-4'
1966 (89th Congress, Second Session)
H.R. 15941 Defense Appropriations Bill
McGovern amiendment to reduce funds for pro-
curement, etc. by 2. 2% or $522. 5m. No (F 18-69
Clark- McGovern amendment to delete appro-
priation of $153. 5m. for Nike-X ABM system No (F 14-73
S. 3583 Military Assistance and Sales Act
McGovern amendment to reduce authorization
for military assistance and sales programs
from $892m. to $642m. for fiscal year 1967 No (F 23-71
Passage of bill authorizing $792m. for mili-
tary assistance and sales fiscal year 1967 Yes (P 82-'3
H.R. 17788 Foreign Aid Appropriations, 1967
Ellender amendment to reduce by $48m. fvmds
for military assistance No (P 47-27
1968 (90th Congress, Second Session)
S. 3293 Military Procurement Authorization, 1969
Nelson amendment to reduce by $343m. authori-
zation for Army procurement of missiles No (F 17-41)
4751
Appendix II, page 3
Cooper amendment to prohibit deployment of
an ABM systenn until Secretary of Defense
certifies workability No (F 28-31)
tl. R. 16703 Military Construction Authorization
Young amendment to strike $Z27m. for con-
struction of support facilities for Sentinel ABM No (F 12-72)
H. R. 14940 Arms Control and Disarmament Act
Clark amendment to authorize $33m. for fiscal
years 1969-71 instead of $17m. for fiscal year
1969-70 No (F 18-53)
.1969 (91st Congress, First Session)
:S. 2546 Military Procurement Authorization-
ABM Deployment, 1970
Mclntyre amendment limiting deployment of
Safeguard ABM system to 2 designated sites No (F 27 -70)
Fulbright amendment to reduce research funds
by $46m. and limit expenditure to directly
military purposes
No (P 49 -44)
Passage of bill authorizing $20. 7b. for mili-
tary procurement and research, etc. and
^ •^, , . Yes (P 5.J-9)
ABM deployment
1970 (91st Congress. Second Session)
H. R. 17867 Foreign Aid Appropriations, 1971
Passage of bill appropriating $4. lb. in foreign ^^^ ^^ ^^_^^^
assistance fiscal year 1971
H. R. 17123 Military Procurement Authorization
Senate passage of the bill authorizing
$19 242 889. 000 fiscal year 1971 for Depart-
ment of Defense major weapons, procurement ^^^ ^^ ^^^ ,.^
and research
I
4752
Appendix 11, page 4
H. R. 19911 Passage of bill authorizing $544. 2m. in
supplemental foreign assistance funds fiscal
year 1971 including aid provisions for Cambodia Yes (P 72-22
S. 3302 Defense Production Act Extension
Goodell amendment reqxiiring the President to
submit annually to Congress a report on naili-
tary expenditures No (F 24-46)
MUSKIE RECORD ON DRAFT \
1967 (90th Congress, First Session) '
S. 1432 to amend Universal Military Training and
Service Act
Hatfield-Nelson amendment to provide for a
volunteer army No (F 9-69)
Hatfield amendment to limit extension to 2 as
opposed to 4 years No (F 13-67)
S. 1432 Conference Report on Selective Service ex-
tending law to 1971, continmng student defer-
ments and rejecting a lottery Yes (P 72-23)
1970 (91st Congress, Second Session)
H. R. 17123 Military Procurement Authorization, 1971
Hatfield-Goldwater amendment to provide for
the creation of an all volunteer army No (F 35-52)
Proxmire amendment to prohibit the use of
draftees in Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia No (F 22-71) '
4753
Appendix II, page 5
IMUSKIE RECORD ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
1966 (89th Congress, Second Session)
H. R. 14921 Independent Offices Appropriation, 1967
Proxmire annendment to reduce funds for develop-
ment of supersonic transport plane from $280m.
to $80m. No (F 31-55)
1970 (91st Congress, Second Session)
H, R. 17123 Military Procurement Authorization, 1971
Proxmire amendment to require the Depart-
ment of Defense to show compliance with Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act of 1969 No (F 26-59)
MUSKIE RECORD ON SPACE PROGRAM
!1963 (88th Congress, First Session)
H. R. 7500 NASA Authorization, 1964
Lausche amendment to cut NASA authoriza-
tion by $308m. No(F?"-37)
H. R. 8747 Independent Offices Appropriation, 1964
Fulbright amendment to cut NASA appropria-
tion by 10% No (F 3 6-46)
Proxmire amendment to cut NASA appropria-
tion by $ 90m. No (P 40-39)
1964 (88th Congress, Second Session)
■H. R, 10456 NASA Authorization, 1965
Fulbright amendment to cut $268m. from Pro-
ject Apollo authorization No (F 38-43)
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 25
4754
Appendix II, page 6
1965 (89th Congress, First Session)
H. R. 7997 Independent Offices Appropriation, 1966
Proxmire amendment to cut NASA appropria-
tion by 5% A (F 16-61)
1966 (89th Congress, Second Session)
H. R. 14921 Independent Offices Appropriation, 1967
Proxmire amendment to cut NASA appropria-
tion by 10% No (F 18-65)
1967 (90th Congress, First Session)
S. 1296 NASA Authorization, 1968
Proxmire amendment to cut NASA authoriza-
tion by $317m. No (F 35-50)
Proxmire amendment to cut NASA authoriza-
tion by $98m. No (F 38-46)
1968 (90th Congress, Second Session)
H.R. 15856 NASA Authorization, 1969
Proxmire -Williams (Del. ) amendnnent to cut
NASA authorization by $780m. No (F 33-38)
MUSKIE RECORD ON URBAN PROBLEMS
1963 (88th Congress, First Session)
S. 6 Urban Mass Transit Act of 1963
Passage of bill authorizing nmatching grant
mass transit program with 3 year fvuid author-
ization of $375m. No (P 52-41)
4755
Appendix U, page 7
1964 (88th Congress, Second Session)
S. 6 Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964
Senate concurrence with House annendment to
bill authorizing 3 year $375m. mass transit
program PNo(P 17-36)
!l970 (91st Congress, Second Session)
F. 3154 Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1969
Goodell-Cranston- Javits amendment to pro-
vide an additional $6. 9b. for urban mass
transportation programs after Jvily 1, 1975 No (F 16-67)
H. R. 14465 Airport and Airways Development Act
Williams -Case amendment to limit the role
of the Secrecary of Transportation in select-
ing a site for an airport No (P 56 -31)
MUSKIE RECORD ON CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS
1964 (88th Congress, Second Session)
H. R. 11049 Federal Employees Pay Bill
Morse -Clark amendment to require full annvial
disclosure of all assets, sources of all gifts,
income and contributions by Members of
Congress, Federal officials, and military
officers No (F 25-66)
Keating amendment to require as precondi-
tion of pay increase disclosure by Members,
officers and employees of Congress receiving
annual salaries in excess of $10, 000 of all
financial interests in excess of $5, 000 and
sources of all income in excess of $100 No (F ;^5 -61)
4756
Appendix II, page 8
S. Res. 337 Disclosure and Prohibited Activities
A resolution requiring disclosure by Members,
officers and employees of Congress receiving
annual salaries in excess of $10, 000 of all as-
sets in excess of $5, 000, capital gains in excess
of $5, 000, associations with professional firms,
employment and financial condition of spouse,
and prohibiting joint ventures with lobbyists
and acceptance of gifts in excess of $100 in
value No (F 25-62)
1967 (90th Congress, first Session)
S. 355 Legislative Reorganization Act of 1967
Motion to table Clark amendment requiring
Senate members and employees earning in
excess of $10, 000 to file a financial state-
ment with the Secretary of the Senate No (P 45-30)
S. 1880 Election Reform Act of 1967
Clark amendment requiring financial dis-
closures by Congressional incumbents and
candidates A (F 42-46)
1968 (90th Congress, Second Session)
S. Res. 266 Senate Standards of Conduct
Cannon amendment to extend disclosure to
candidates as well as incumbents No (P 45-37)
MUSKIE RECORD ON LABOR ISSUES (including farm labor issues)
1963 (88th Congress, First Session)
H.R. 5888 HEW -Department of Labor Appropriations, 1964
Hill amendment restoring House deleted
bracero program for fiscal year 1964 Yes (P 45-34)'
4757
Appendix U, page 9
L965 (89th Congress, First Session)
H.R. 77 to repeal section 14b of the National Labor
Relations Act (Right-to-Work)
Mansfield motion to bring debate to a close
under Senate Rule XXII (cloture) Yes (F 45-47)
(Note: in effect this motion opposed the
Right-to-Work provision. )
1966 (89th Congress, Second Session)
H. R. 77 to repeal section 14b of the National Labor
Relations Act (Right-to-Work)
Mansfield motion to bring debate to a close
under Senate Rule XXII (cloture) Yes (F 50-49)
2/3 1 equired
H.R. 15119 Unemployment Insurance Amendments, 1966
Committee amendment to provide 26 weeks
of benefits at minimvun after 20 weeks of work
regardless of state law Yes (F 38-44)
(Note: average period of unemployment is
6 Aveeks)
1967 (90th Congress, First Session)
5. J. Res. 81 Railroad Shop Craft Dispute
Yarborough annendment to impound 10% of rail-
road profits during period in which Special
Board's settlement terms are in effect No (F 23-59)
Kennedy (Mass. ) amendment to provide for
government seizure of railroads during 90
day mediation period No (F 22-64)
Resolution empowering President to appoint
mediation panel during 90 day no -strike, no
lock-out period Yes (P 70-15)
4758
Appendix 11, page 10
1970 (91st Congress, Second Session)
H.J. Res. 1413 (S.J, Res. 248) Railway Labor -Manage-
ment Dispute
Senate passage of a bill extending to March 1,
1971 the prohibition of strikes or lockouts and
providing pay increases for railway employees Yes (P 54-31)
MUSKIE RECORD ON EDUCATION ISSUES
1963 (88th Congress, First Session)
H.R. 8747 Independent Offices Appropriation, 1964
Clark amendment to provide $50m. increase
in funds for National Science Foundation No (F 20-57)
MUSKIE RECORD ON HEALTH ISSUES
1964 (88th Congress, Second Session)
H.R, 6675 to provide a hospital insurance program
for the aged under the Social Security Act
Ribicoff amendment to remove time limita-
tions on hospital and nursing home care No (F 39-43)
MUSKIE RECORD ON CIVIL RIGHTS
1965 (89th Congress, First Session)
S. 1564 Voting Rights Act of 1965
Kennedy (Mass. ) amendment to ban poll tax
as precondition of voting No (F 45-49)
4759
Appendix II, page 11
«■
MUSKIE RECORD ON ECONOMIC ISSUES
1964 (88th Congress, Second Session)
H. R. 8363 to amend Internal Revenue Code of 1954
Douglas amendment to raise personal tax exemp-
tion by $100 and limit reduction in corporate
taxes to 2% (rather than 4%) No (F ?,3 -71)
Proxmire amendment to delete provision di-
recting Federal regulatory agencies (utilities)
to slow "flow" of tax benefits to consumers No (F 43-48)
Williams (Del. ) amendment to forbid finan-
cial institutions from deducting interest on
loans used to buy tax-exempt bonds No (F 10- 11)
1968 (90th Congress, Second Session)
H,R, 15414 Revenue and Expenditure Control Act
of 1968 (Conference Report)
Adoption of Act providing tax surcharge of
10% on individuals and corporations and re-
ducing expenditures Yes (P 1 16)
1969 (91st Congress, First Session)
Nomination of Carl Gilbert to the Special Trade
Representative (an advocate of trade liberal-
ization) No (P 61-30)
H. R. 9951 Surtax Extension
Passage of bill extending 10% surcharge to
December 31. 1969 Yes (P 70-30)
1970 (91st Congress, Second Session)
H.R. 17550 Social Security-Trade-Family Assistance
Motion to table Williams amendment to add a
new Title II and Title m for quotas on textiles
and footwear
No (F ' 3)
4760
Appendix II, page 12
MUSKIE RECORD ON CONSUMER ISSUES
1965 (89th Congress, First Session)
S. 596 to amend Public Health Service Act
Pastore motion to table amendment to prohibit
use of Federal funds for medical research un-
less all developments are freely available to
the general public (free use of patents) Yes (P 55-36)
1970 (90th Congress, Second Session)
S. 4459 Consumer Protection Organization Act
Hart amendment to establish Consumer Pro-
tection Agency independent of executive branch Yes (F 10-69)
MUSKIE RECORD ON AGRICULTURAL ISSUES
1964 (88th Congress, Second Session)
H.R, 6196 Agriculture Act of 1964
Mundt -Humphrey amendment to forbid Com-
modity Credit Corporation from selling wheat
at less than 115% of support price No (F 34-54)
1965 (89th Congress, First Session)
H.R. 9811 Food and Agriculture Act of 1965
Brewster amendment to limit price support
payments (save sugar producers) to $25,000' No (F 35-56)
Williams (Del. ) amendment to limit payments
as above to $50, 000 No (F 42-49)
Williams (Del. ) amendment to limit payments
as above to $100, 000 No (F 42-50)
I 4761
i Appendix II, jjage 13
1968 (90th Congress, Second Session)
H. R. 15414 Tax Adjustment Act of 1968
McGovern amendment to limit dairy imports
to average of 5 year period 1961-65 No (F 37-38)
S. 3590 Agriculture Act of I968
Williams (Del. ) amendment to limit price sup-
port payments (save sugar producers) to
$25,000 A (F 25-47)
Williams (Del. ) amendment as above to limit
payments to $75, 000 A (F 30-40)
Monroney, et. al. annendment to establish or
maintain strategic reserves of wheat, feed
grains, soybeans and soybean oil A (F 26-18)
1969 (91st Congress, First Session)
H,R. 11612 Agriculture Appropriations, 1970
Comnnittee amendment to strike House language
limiting price support jjayments (save sugar
producers) to $20,000 Yes (P 53-34)
H.R, 17923 Agriculture and Related Agencies Ap-
propriations, 1971
Holland -Hruska amendment to increase amount
available for Farnaers Home Administration
direct real estate loans for rural water and
sewage facilities by $40m. instead of increasing
it by $272m. Yes (P 53-24)
MUSKIE RECORD ON CRIME ISSUES
1965 (89th Congress, First Session)
H.R. 5688 Omnibus Crime Bill (District of Columbia)
4762
Appendix II, page 14
Tydings amendment to strike Title I modifying
Mallory rule (confessions may not be obtained
by xinreasonable delay, a defendant must be
advised of his rights, etc.) No (F 26-67)
MUSKIE RECORD ON INDIAN PROBLEMS
1964 (88th Congress, Second Session)
H. R. 10433 Interior Department Appropriation, 1965
Morse amendment to increase funds by $4. 9m.
to establish a boarding high school for Indian
students No ( b^ 11-71)
MUSKIE RECORD ON SHIP-BUILDING ISSUES
1968 (90th Congress, Second Session)
H,R. 15189 Maritime Authorization
Williams (Del. )-Lausche amendment to reduce
vessel construction authorization from $237m.
to $120m. No (P 48-32)
MUSKIE RECORD ON GUN CONTROL
1968 (90th Congress, Second Session)
S. 917 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Dodd amendment to permit interstate shipment
of longarms only when sanctioned by state law
and sales to persons under 18 only when accom-
panied by parents or guardian . Yes (F 29-54]
i
Hruska amendment to weaken handgun provi-
sions of Title IV (Firearms Control) No (F 37-45)
4763
Appendix II, page 15
1969 (91st Congress, First Session)
H.R. 12829 Interest Equalization Tax extension
Dodd motion to table Committee amendment
exempting shotgun and rifle ammunition from
record -keeping requirennents of G\xn Control
Act of 1968 A (F 19-3)
Passage of Committee amendment as above A (P G'J -G)
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
1969 (91st Congress, First Session)
Motion to reconannit nomination of Otto Otepka to
the Subversive Activities Control Board of
the Senate Judiciary Committee No (F 3: -56)
I
I
4764
EXfflBIT No. 244-1
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1. 1971
The Harris Sarvey
Muskie Runs Ahead of Nixon
In Trial UeaU 43% to 40%
By Louis Harris
Sen. Edmund Muskie
leads President Nixon and
Gov. George Wallace In the
latest Harris Survey trial
heat for the 1972 race for
the White House. The Maine
Democrat is ahead of Mr.
Nixon as the Republican
candidate by 43 to 40 per
cent, with Alabama Gov.
Wallace polling 11 per cent
as a third party candidate.
Here Is the trend of re-
sults in similar soundings
that have been taken ulnce
1969 in answer to these
questions: "If the election
for President In 1972 were
being held today and you
had to decide, would you
vote for Sen. Edmond Mu-
skie for the Demcrata,
President Richard Nixon for
the Republicans, or Gov.
George Wallace as an inde-
pendent?" and "If you are
not sure but had to say
whom you lean toward — Mu-
skie the Democrat, Nixon
the Republican, or Wallace
the independent.
TREND FOR PRESIDENT
NIlM MMkK Wlliact sv
Jinutrv, W\
40%
41%
ns 6
Nov., Wt
40
44
10 4
Sfi.
o
41
10 4
May
42
3t
13 1
April
47
M
10 7
F«b.
4*
35
11 5
Nov., \Hf
4*
35
11 5
Oct.
SI
35
♦ 5
Miy
51
13
11 5
The division by age shows
sharp and significant differ-
ences, with Muskie and Wal-
lace stronger with young peo-
ple, but with the President
ahead among those over 90:
TRIAL HEAT BY AGE
Not
NIxM MMkI* WlIlM* tur*
NatlonwM* 40% 43% 11% 4%
Under 30 34 4( U «
30-4* 4) 43 10 4
50 and ovar 44 40 11 5
Results indicate that many
of the traditional economic
political divisions are disap-
pearing in this changing elec-
torate:
TRIAL HEAT BY INCOME
Nlion Muikla Wallaca lura
Nationwide 40%
43%
H% 4%
Under »500o 36
44
13 7
t5000-»?»» 34
40
15 7
It0,000-$14,99» 43
44
« 5
115 000 and over 44
44
7 3
One division of the elec-
torate does take on a familiar
— and in this test, decisive —
pattern, when the vote is
analyzed by race:
TRIAL HEAT BY RACE
Nationwide
Wt)lta
Black
Nixon Mlttkle WallKa lur*
40% 43% 11% 4%
4765
HARRIS SURVEY
Question: Suppose in 1972 for President it were between Nixon the Republican,
Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine for the Democrats, and Governor Wallace as an
Independent. If you had to choose right now, who would you be for? and
(If "NOT SURE") Well, if you had to say, would you lean toward Nixon the Repub-
lican, Muskie the Democrat, or Wallace the Independent?
NIXON-MUSKIE-WALLACE-TREND
Nixon Muskie Wallace Not Sure
X
%
%
%
(final pairing) June, 1972
49
28
18
5
April, 1972
4A
33
15
8
March, 1972
47
35
12
6
Feb., 1972
44
40
11
5
Jan., 1972
42
42
11
5
Nov., 1971
43
39
11
7
Sept. 1971
47
35
11
7
Aug., 1971
43
41
12
4
June, 1971
40
42
11
7
May, 1971
40
42
11
7
April, 1971
39
47
11
3
Feb., 1971
39
44
12
5
<
Question: (If CHOICE "WALLACE")
Suppose
George Wallace
were not
NIXON-MUSKIE TREND
Nixon Muskie Not Sure
X
%
%
(final pairing) June, 1972
59
33
8
March, 1972
50
37
13
Feb., 1972
47
45
8
Jan., 1972
45
48
7
Nov., 1971
48
43
9
Sept., 1971
50
AO
10
Aug., 1971
47
45
8
June, 1971
46
46
8
April, 1971
44
50
6
Feb., 1971
42
48
10
I
4766
Exhibit No. 244-2
REQUEST FOR DISBU
r
r«;emf.nt Date
19
i
nd S. Muskie
1001
Payziblc To
Amount $
For
By By
Check Petty Cash
eel. N.W.
D. C. 20036
Requested By
Approved By
[ssued By
Date
Number
March 2, 1971
Amount $
Account
MEMORANDUM
TO: STAFF
A
FROM: BOB JONES ^y<
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR DIS
BURSEMENT
As our organization grows. It is necessary for us
to establish reasonable, but effective, financial control. This
is particularly true when so many new and volunteer personnel are
working with us.
The list below shows types of expenditures and approval
required for petty cash expenditures. The attached form should
be filled out by the person requesting the reimbursement, approved
by the appropriate person and sent to Ruth Riddle for payment. It
is requested that all purchases of office supplies, other than
emergency items, be done through Ruth instead cf using petty cash.
Supplies ordered during the week are delivered on Friday.
USES OF PETTY CASH
TYPE OF EXPENSE
APPROVAL NEEDED
Meal Reimbursement Section Head
Office Supplies including stamps (emergency purchase) . .Section Head
Cab Fare during work Section Head
Mileage and Baggage Handling (local) Section Bead
Books, Newspapers and Magazines Section Head
Other Expenses BIB, DEN, RLN
Requests for checks for any purpose should be approved
on this form by either BIB, DEN or RLN.
Supplies of the "Request for Disbursement" form can be
obtained from Ruth Riddle.
4767
AprU 17, 1971
MEMORANDUM
From: Berl Bernhaxd
To: Staff
■
" We have all been aware, for some time, that our political operation
has needed more concentration.
The acquisition of Jack English was a major step in meeting that
problem but, because of a lack of resources, we have fovind it difficult to
augument his operation with necessary supportive personnel.
We have recently been offered the services of a significant number
of qualified people on a volunteer basis to help us with speech writing,
research and issues development. We have also sought to tighten up all
phases of our program while looking toward increasing reliance on
volunteer assistance.
This will make it possible for us to attend properly to the political
operation by reducing, temporarily, staff overhead.
It is difficult to take off the payroll people who have made a
significant contribution. We hope it will be possible to have them rejoin
the staff in the future and to serve right away as volunteers wherever
possible.
I
4768
MEMORANDUM
TO: Berl Bernhard DATE: February 11, 1972
Lloyd DeVos /
George Mitchell^
Don Petrie
Arnold Picker
FROM: Peter Br
ink^
f
RE: Overall Summary of Financial Arrangements Per
Meeting on Thursday, February 10.
Rough totals for period February 1 - May 6:
Previously estimated revenue
for period $2,500,000
Reduced by $400,000 to $600,000
(due to adoption of self-funding
in most primary states -- see below) $2,000,000
Expenditures for New Hampshire, Florida,
Wisconsin (exclusive of support items
in national budget) Maximum $1,000,000
Budgets approved for other primary
states for which national fundraising
is responsible:
Ohio $251,000
New Jersey 18,600
New York 38,500
California 90,000
Total for Four Primaries 400,000
Requested budget of $161,000 for
convention state seed money reduced
by $61,000 • 100,000
Requested national headquarters budget
of $1,600,000 reduced by cuts of
$387,000 (exclusive of 10% pay cut) 1.200,000
Total Projected Expenditures $2,700,000
Short fall of revenue below expenditures $ 700,000
4769
Page 2.
Memorandum to: Berl Bernhard
Lloyd DeVos
George Mitchell
Don Petrie
Arnold Picker
From: Peter Brink
Date: February 11, 1972
II. It is impossible to determine at exactly what date the
estimated $700,000 short fall will cause a deficit in
cash flow so severe that we will be unable to meet
deadlines for cash expenditures. An estimated date
can only be determined after Arnold and Dick Kline have
adjusted their estimated revenue inflow by week to take
into account the loss of revenue to national fundraising
caused by the self -funding arrangements. In addition,
once George arrives at reduced budget totals for New
Hampshire, Florida and Wisconsin, and a decision is
made on the 10% pay cut at headquarters and on the Hill,
a revised projection of cash disbursements must be made.
All of these adjustments should be made by Wednesday,
February 16 so that Berl and George can be advised of
the estimated date of interruption of cash disbursements.
Hopefully, the two cash flows will coincide sufficiently
to avoid an interruption prior to the Florida primary
date. However, this may well not be the case.
III. George and Berl are to meet with the Senator to make
clear to him that our present course of action means
that we will face an inability to make cash payments
for projected items (whether time buys, payroll,
telephone) by mid-March or sooner unless victories in
the New Hampshire and Florida primaries cause a major
upsurge in contributions i.e. a major increase in
contributions over the $2,000,000 target for the
February 1 - May 6 period.
IV. Meetings of Berl, George, Don, Peter and Lloyd will be
held every Saturday morning (starting February 19) to
review financial position.
V. It was agreed that eleven of the primary states would
be self -funding . No disbursements of funds will be
made out of monies raised by national fundraising
and consequently the amounts of expenditures set
forth in the above summary include no transfers of
funds for campaigns in these eleven states. While
national fundraising is free to attempt to draw money
out of persons in those states, all monies raised by
the state finance committees of those states will be
used in the respective state campaigns (with the
exception of $250,000 in estimated surpluses detailed
below) . To clarify this arrangement it is assumed
that the following points are agreed upon:
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 26
4770
Page 3.
Memorandum to: Berl Bernhard
Lloyd DeVos
George Mitchell
Don Petrie
"Arnold Picker
From: Peter Brink
Date: February 11, 1972
A. The national Muskie for President will not
accept liability for debts incurred by these
eleven state organizations.
B. Seed money or loans from Muskie for President
to these state organizations will not be
provided.
- -C-. The national Muskie for-President will continue
to pay the salaries and travel expenses of Jim
Johnson, Dick Leone and Tony Podesta only. The
national will also continue to pay the travel,
advance and rally costs cirectly related to
ESM events.
D. The respective state organizations will purchase
approved campaign materials either locally or
from sources arranged by the national.
E. No monies raised prior to February 10, 1972, in
these respective states and already transferred to
national headquarters are to be refunded to
the state organizations.
F. Direct mail fundraising by the national may
continue. The national will continue to turn
over the names of all direct mail contributors in
each state to the respective state organizations.
~~C~. Monies 'raised by these state organizations are
' to be retained physically by the organizations,
-^ames/'addresses of contributors will be sent
to national headquarters for ESM thank-yous and
reporting.
H. Monies for media time buys will be sent directly
from the state organization to Ruth Jones, Ltd.
I. The political coordinator in charge of each of
the state organizations will designate a local
individual to be responsible for adequate
accounting of funds raised and spent and full
compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act.
The person selected must be approved by national
headquarters. The national headquarters will supply
legal and accounting guidelines and policies and
may audit state organization accounts.
4771
Page 4 .
Memorandum to ;
From:
Date:
Berl Bernhard
Lloyd DeVos
George Mitchell
Don Petrie
Arnold Picker
Peter Brink
February 11, 1972
The eleven self-funding primary states are listed
below. The budget figures listed are the estimates of v/hat
the respective state fundraising effort can be expected to
raise and therefore what the state organization will have
available to spend. The right-hiand column indicates whether
the state is expected to raise any surplus funds for transfer
to the national.
Illinois
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Indiana
North Carolina
Tennessee
Nebraska
West Virginia
Maryland
Michigan
Self-Funded Budget
Estimate
$200,000
No Estimate
$100,000
$350,000
$150,000
$100,000
•No Estimate
$30,000
No Estimate
$125,000
$315,000
Surplus for
National
Surplus anticipated
subsequent to
primary 3/21.
Zero
Raise $300,000
equels $100,000
surplus
Zero
Zero
1/
Raise $200,000
equals $100,000
surplus
Zero
Zero
Zero
Raise $200,000
equals $75,000
surplus
Zero
y Unlike other self-funding primaries all expenses relating
to ESM travel, advance and rallies will be paid for by the
Indiana organization.
I
4772
MEMORANDUM
TO: Berl Bernhard. DATE: February 11, 1972
Lloyd DeVos
George Mitchelliy
Don Petrie
Arnold Picker
FROM: Peter Brinle^^^
RE : Follow-up on Budget Meeting of February 10th
I . Berl Bernhard and George Mitchell Together
1. Explain implications to ESM of decision not
to cut projected expenditures sufficiently
to meet projected revenues (as spelled out
in the attached memo) .
2. Consult with ESM as to cutting all salaries
by 101 at K Street and on all Hill payrolls.
(Employees earning $100 per week or less to
be excluded from cut). Also consult with ESM
on explanation to press regarding cuts.
3. Meet with Squier to tell him that Media
Production budget is cut from $222,000 to
$120,000 for the period from February 1 through
May 6.
4. Try to arrange for Hank Brown to be volunteer
full time labor coordinator.
II . Bernhard
1. Together with Jack English, explain and enforce
cut of California budget to $25,000 per month
effective February 13 ancf ending until at least
May 6. Arrange with California that, within
the reduced budget, they will continue the
following persons on their payroll but will
allow them to devote full time until May 6 to
working in convention states:
4773
Page 2.
Memorandum to:
From:
Date:
Berl Bernhard
Lloyd DeVos
■George Mitchell
Don Petrie
Arnold Picker
Peter Brink
February 11, 1972
a. Poulen
b. DePoin
c. W. McGuire
d. Armendariz
2. Contact Henry Haladay regarding volunteer full
time lawyer if Mitchell is unsuccessful with
McDermott .
3. Tell Don Nicoll that he must cut either Elsie
Vance or Laurie Williams, and we will not pay
^ " '$1,700 he committed to Sukie Hammond. Also
tell him we cannot pay parking for any staff
member .
4. Arrange with Sandy Lading for her to shift to
the second floor to provide secretarial service
to Michael Barnes and Harold Wolff.
5. Tell Marsha Pinkstaff that she will remain on
^he existing payroll arrangement, i.e. $25 per
day for advance work, with possible shift to
Indiana payroll later.
6. Tell Dick Kline that he does not have an
_ ._._additional slot for secretarial help.
III. George Mitchell
1.
2.
3.
Cut New Hampshire, Florida and Wisconsin budgets
to below $1,000,000 and, in addition, subtract
from each budget salaries and expenses of
national staff assigned full time to the respective
states .
Also direct that each of these budgets absorb
the cost of telephone deposits due to the
decision not to use a national telephone deposit.
Contact McDermott to arrange all necessary legal
assistance.
Tell Mark that Kathy will assist Jack English,
John Dean and Bill Beckham, as well as him.
4774
Page 3.
Memorandum to: Berl Bernhard
Lloyd DeVos
George Mitchell
Don Petrie
Arnold Picker
From: Peter Brink
Date: February 11, 1972
4. Tell Eliot to cut the scheduling payroll by
25% (exclusive of Eliot) . Also tell him the
Speakers Bureau travel budget has been cut
to $9,000 for the period February 1 to May 6,
fi. Tf»n Mike Casey that Robin must be dropped
and discuss with Mike retention of Doreen in
Washington.
Also tell him that budget for rallies is cut
to $50,000 (including Florida train) for
period February 1 to May 6.
6. Tell Tony Lake that he has no secretarial slot.
7. Tell John McEvoy that there are no further
speechwriting slots and, if ESM agrees, that
all salaries on Hill must be reduced by 101
(exclusive of staff earning $100 or less per
week) .
8. Tell Dick Stewart to cut 20% of payroll of
press section (exclusive of Stewart, Deputy'
Press Secretary and Steve Muskie) .
9. Tell Barbara Coleman to cut two boiler room
members in addition to planned termination of
O'Leary.
10. Tell Jack that he will share Kathy rather
than replace Boyette.
H. Tell Ann Wexler that we cannot hire Norling
but that she will have the use of four
coordinators from California. Tell her that
we must take Sheppie and Page off payroll and
that we cannot provide any additional personnel
for the functioning committees. Tell her that
(exclusive of herself. Kirk, Pam and Sandy
Moulton) she is allowed $10,000 on the
national payroll from February 1 to May 6 for
4775
additional convention state organizers.
This $10,000 includes salaries for Youth
Coalition which is placed under Wexler's
direction. Also tell Lanny Davis that
YCM is now under Wexler and she will
determine payroll allocations.
,<
12. Tell Mary Hoyt that we cannot provide a
secretary for her and that the travel budget
for Jane Muskie has been reduced to $16,000
for February 1 through May 6.
IV. Jack English
1. Explain to Cynthia Johnston that she has been
removed from national payroll as of February 15,
with possibility that Pennsylvania organization
may pick her up.
2. Explain to Ken Horn that Oregon is self -funding
until May.
V. Peter Brink
1. Switch Under stein to voluntary arrangement.
2. Terminate Eastman.
3. Deny secretary for Eastman.
4. Cut payroll of operations sections A - E by 101
5. Reduce mailroom by one person and remove slot
for additional robot operator.
6. Tell Navarro to cut Polling payroll by $2,500
for the period February 1 to May 6.
7. March 15 terminate Bud Chiles.
8. Terminate Johnston as of February 15.
9. Terminate Pavlot in Direct Mail.
10. Exempt Coutts from any salary cut.
4776
11. Arrange termination of health insurance.
12. Arrange liquidated damages with law firm at L
Street and settle with landlord of 7th floor.
13. Direct Wolff to pick up typewriters as they
become available and return to IBM and to
freeze phone service once existing orders are
filled.
14. Cut office equipment purchases to $1,500 maximum,
15. Eliminate all telephone credit cards.
16. Assist Petrie in terminating existing ad agency
arrangement, obtaining status report, and
insuring that no further expenditures are
committed without specific approval. Try to
obtain help from Isidore on newspaper ads.
Assist Petrie in arranging deal with Cummings
and submit production plan to Mitchell.
17. Reduce Direct Mail direct cost to $30,000 for
period February 1 to May 6.
18. Draft necessary memos for Bernhard/Mitchell to
explain:
- $25 maximum travel expense (exclusive of air
fare and other long range travel) for travel
separate from ESM.
- $10 maximum expense for travel with ESM
(exclusive of hotel room) .
- Explain termination of telephone credit cards
and non-acceptance of third party charges to
headquarters number; explain reimbursement of
charges to personal credit cards or numbers.
- Explain to political coordinators details of
self -funding arrangement.
19. Work out system for enforcing budget limit
(plus air fare) on political travel and other
categories .
4777
MEMORANDUM
TO: Arnold Picker FROM: Don Petrie
DATE: February 18, 1972
The purpose of this memorandum is to record a
portion of our discussion in your. off ice Tuesday, concerning
weekly cash flow.
At the present time we are planning to spend
through May 6, a sum exceeding our cash on hand plus the
amount we plan to collect. We recognize that under the
circumstances any attempt to "budget" in the ordinary
sense is idle.
What we will attempt to do is to keep as close
track as possible of income and outgo so as to be able to
have some warning as to when expenses will exceed resources.
follows :
For this purpose we will have a weekly review as
1. First thing on Monday morning of each week
Peter, Lloyd and I will review cash on hand and
the week's commitments which have been authorized
by George and Berl. We will do our best to time
those commitments over the five business days.
2. The three of us will then meet with Dick Kline
around lunch time to review his best estimate of
receipts which can be anticipated during the week
similarly timed.
3. We will then review the situation as it appears
from this data with whichever of Berl or George
is in the office on that day.
4. Either Peter, Dick or I will subsequently
report to you by telephone.
This is the system we are presently following and
it will hopefully give us a couple of weeks visibility ahead
when it is a little better perfected.. ^
Berl Bernhard
Peter Brink
Lloyd DeVos
George Mitchell
Dick Kline
4778
March 14, 1972
FOUR WEEKS ENDED APRIL 8, 1972
( 000s omitted )
$1+75 Total Resources
-175 Payables
300
5 Illinois
295
_- 5 Conventions including travel
2S0
-200 Wisconsin (a reduction of $100,000 below budget)
90
-SO First payroll (week of Marchlo)
40
-10 Second payroll (week of March26)
30
-6 Postage
24
-10 Advance and rally
14
- 4 All staff travel
10 Balance to covar contingencies for four weeks
MEiMO : The forgoing budget makes no provision
for any of the following activities
or functions:
Function expense for period (est.)
Funding for Ohio _ $230
Operation of Electra 30 .
Separate JM travel 5
Speakers bureau 5
Campaign materials 10
Polling 5
Media production for Ohio, Mass., Pa.
4779
To: Berl Bernhard
March lU, 1972
From: Peter Brink
Donald Petrie
Allocation of $10,000 for
Second Payroll due Week of
March 26
We reconunend that all employees at K
Street be advised upon receiving their paychecks
tomorrow for the first half of March that no payroll
will be paid for the second half of March.
We will pay for that period, however, the following
items:
1. Health insurance of staff members for
whom we have been with-holding premiums
so as not to interrupt their coverage:
estimated cost $2,000.
2. Minimiim hardship payments to about
35 ministerial employees. A list
of recommended payments is attached/
estimated cost #8,U00.
We also recommend advising all employees
tomorrow that decisions regarding periods after March
will be settled in the next week and communicated
to them.
i
TO: Berl Bernhard
George Mitchell
Bob Squier
FROM: Peter Brink^^^
4780
MEMOR.\NDUM
DATE: March 20, 1972
RE: Media: Budget and Actual Expenditures for
February and March 1/
(Exclusive of Time Buys and Communications Company Contract)
Time Buying Operations
Budget.
2 Months X $11,400 =
Actual Expenditures.
Ruth Jones
6 Weeks x $2,100
2 Weeks x 2,500
$12,600
5,000
$17,600
Vitt Media
4 Weeks x $750
5 Weeks x 1,500
Phones
Total
$ 3,000
7,500
3,359 2/
$1S,859 "
$22,800
Excess of Actual Expenditures
Over Budget
31,459
$ 8,659
1/
Excludes costs directly related to announcement TV/radio
programs .
y Includes $1,000 phone deposit to be returned to us at
end of time buying operation.
4781
Page 2.
To: Berl Bernhard
George Mitchell
Bob Squier
From: Peter Brink
Date: March 20, 1972
II . Schwartz and Med ion.
Schwartz : $50,000 contract payment due February, March
April, May, June in $10,000 installments.
$20,000 paid through March.
Apparently all services will have been completed
by end of March with $30,000 to be paid through
June.
Med ion: $105,000 contract.
$60,000 paid to date.
$25,000 currently due is being postponed week
by week.
$20,000 to be paid later.
Apparently all services now completed.
Summary:
Accrued expenses during February and March = $155,000
Actual expenditures made to date = 80,000
Amount Owing $ 85 ,000
4782
MARCH 28, 1972
MEMORANDUM
TO: Berl Bernhard
George Mitchell '^
Bob Squler
FRCM: Peter Brinkj^'
SUBJECT: Media: Update of\budget /actual for
February -"^Hatcfi
The comparison of budget and actual expenditures for media
production during February and March which was sent to you
on March 20 indicated that expenditures exceeded budget by
$24,288.00.
Additional bills received from Logos today indicate that as
of March 24 Logos expenditures have now increased by $11,406.00
over the $30,000.00 estimated previously.
This means that thusfar actual expenditures are now exceeding
budget by $24,288.00 plus $11,406.00, for a total excess of
$35,694.00.
4783
MEMORANDUM
TO: Entire Staff FROM: Berl Bernhard
DATE: March 28, 1972
RE: Financial Expenditures and Commitments.
Effective today no financial expenditures, and
no commitments for future expenditures, aggregating
$500 or more are to be made on behalf of the national
campaign without my approval.
Requests for approval may be made to me in
writing, by phone, or in person. No request shall be
entertained by me, however, unless prior consultation
has taken place with Peter Brink so that, before my
decision is made, he may advise me on the budget
effect of the request.
This memo in no way alters my memo of March 24
requiring approval by me of all staff travel regardless
of cost.
4784
MARCH 29, 1972
MEMORANDUM
TO: Berl Bemhard
George Mitchell
t^
FROM: Peter Brln
SUBJECT: Questions Regarding State - National Division of
Functions
Decisions need to be made as to whether the national headquarters ip to
continue performing many of its existing functions, or whether each
self-funding primary organization will perform the functions in its
respective state. This memo simply attempts to point out several of the
functions about which decisions are necessary. . ..
I. Media Production As you know substantial funds have been
expended to Medion, Schwartz, and Logos for media production. Should
the national continue to produce new material for TV/radio, or should
the state supplement the national's existing material thru their own
production arrangements? If the latter alternative is chosen, should
the national retain the full or part-time services of the Comraianications
Company either to advise on the states' media production or to assist the
Senator in appearances on free TV time?
II. Time Buying The national currently utilizes a central time
buying operation ... at a cost of $i+, 000.00 per week. Should the national
continue this arrangement? Should primary organizations reimbursement
the national for pro-rato shares of time-buying costs? Can the amount
of radio time bought be reduced substantially so that staff back up
for Ruth Jones can be reduced, at a savings of $750.00 per week?
in. Mass Political Mailings The national currently provides two
staff members who in coordination with the state political coordinators,
design and implement mass political mailings. Should the national
continue this fianction or should each state organization make its own
arrangements?
IV. Poll in-; Shoiild the national continue to design, contract for,
interpret and fund all public opinion polls performed in the states?
If each state organization is to average and fund its own polls, should
the national provide any staff to attempt to insure uniformity or to
interpret results?
V. Advance and Rallies Should the national shift control of these
functions to the states? Can the national retain control if it requires
the state organizations to fund these functions?
VI. ESM Travel Can the national arrange for the state organizations
to pay for room and board pertaining to the Senator-' s travel? Can special
charters of planes and buses be charged to the states?
VII. Separate Jane Muskie Travel Can this be paid for by state
organizations?
VHI. Secondary Speakers Chargeablt; to the state organizations?
4785
MEMORANDUM
TO: Berl Bemhard FROM: Dick Kline
Ed Campbell
George Mitchell
Bob Nelson
RE: Convention Expenses DATE: June 19, 1972
The following guidelines will apply for expenses of all staff
and political coordinators who go to MinM on our behalf:
1. We will pay $146 per person round -trip fare from
Washington to Miami for those staff and political coordinators
who cannot pay their own air fare.
2. We will pay rooms at the Americana on a two person
per room basis for those staff and coordinators who cannot pay
for their hotel rooms. Please let me know what coordinators fall
in that gategory and also what coordinators will be paying their own
bills for whom we can assign a single room.
3. For those coordinators who cannot pay their own living
expenses, we will pay each of them $15 per day — • the money to be
given them either prior to departure or upon their arrival in Miami,
nils Is to include all_ of their out-of-pocket costs. We will have
approximately 15 cars available for their use in Miami at no charge
to them.
4. No meals or long distance telephone calls are to be
charged on the Americana bill, under the arrangements we have
made with the hotel. Coordinators should charge long distance calls
to their home telephone bills, and we will reimburse them following
their submission of the bills after the Convention.
5. No staff or coordinators should be authorized to any
commitment or expenditure of funds without prior approval from me.
bi virtually all of these cases, I will provide the coordinator with
funds so that the bills can be covered at the time of authorization.
* 6. Everyone is allowed to swim free in the ocean.
i
4786
Exhibit No. 244-3
City of Washington, )
) ss:
District of Columbia )
My name is Patricia Whiteaker. I have been employed as book-
keeper for the Muskie Campaign at the National Headquarters in Washington,
D. C. since January 1972. Recently, I was asked to review the accounts of
the Muskie Campaign Committee which were in the possession of the headquarters.
Accordingly,, I reviewed the accounts commencing January 1971 to date.
Based upon this review, it is my information and belief that in no one month
during the period from January 1971 through the Convention of 1972 did the
Campaign of Senator Muskie finish the month with money which was not exceeded
by outstanding commitments. The Campaign was continuously in debt; and,
by the end of the campaign, the debts totalled approximately $200, 000. 00 -
and the debt would have been higher had not negotiations to settle debts been
commenced in the spring of 1972. At the present time, it is my informatioi\
and belief that the Campaign is in debt for less than $20, 000. oa
Attached herewith is a siimmary of my calculations for the accounts
of each month during 1971 and 1972, This summary supports my conclusion
that the Muskie Campaign contintially showed a monthly deficit throughout
that period.
Patricia Whiteaker
JUS£^l^
Patricia Whiteaker, being duly sworn, on her oath says that she has
read the foregoing statement and the accompanying data; that, as to the matters
4787
and facts stated therein to be true, the same are true; and that, as to the
matters and facts stated therein upon information and belief, the same are
true as affiant is informed and verily believes.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this twenty- sixth day of October,
1973.
Notary Pubuc'
My Commission expires; «i comnUMtoa expkm auqum 14, im
4788
??;
i-i
i
s ^
=
q
=^
z
—
—
—
—
nj
^
—
-I'M -
K
-
-
-
—
—
E
-j-
E
E
E
—
*=
^
—
-•3
=
i
i
:-
fltl
E
—
—
—
E
E
—
—
—
— -
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
^
—
—
:^
—
xi
.-^
—
^
—
—
—
—
^
—
—
—
—
—
—
— 1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1 —
—
—
—
— '
— 1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— 1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
— J
—
__.,
—
—
— 1
—
—
—
—
—
. —
—
—
—
—
—
— 1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— 4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
,
CI.
_
_
_
k^
_s
_s
43-
-1
^'
1
E
=
—
E
E
~z:
z:
—
—
^
^
z:
c
^
-
1
"
i
7-.
.^z
—
—
E
z:
—
—
—
—
—-
-
—
-^
^-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— ~
—
— '
—
— '
—
^
^
r
^
^
-Jil
^
—
h—
—
—
—
—
~
—
—
—
—
:|
^
—
-^
"::::
=^^
-ZZ
ZC
ZZ
—
—
=
ZI
—
—
—
=z
z:
z:
ZI
:^
~
IS
i
SJi
—
ZnS
ZZ
~
=
~
=
=
■o
1
__
—
,
,
,
,
— 1
—
—
—
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
' —
—
—
1 —
—
' —
' —
—
—
—
—
1
1
-.
1
1
,
—
—
— '
^
LZ]
—
'^
,1
—
---
"~
- —
—
-~-|
—
—
' —
—
—
—
—
1 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0
^
_!:i
•5;
tr-
M
'^
<":
^
JO
, 1
--a.
Llv
-f{
1
IV
_^
_>«
_<:
-M
1
^
h^
-^
—
—
—
•^1
—
-(¥^
^
^i)
—
=5^"
—
—
"^
vi
—
ptj
^
—
—
—
F^
—
—
' —
—
—
or
^<
-^
O
Os
q
-.<
^
cji
«v
V
"--
^
(^
N
! ' 1
1
"^
1
1
f
•
1
[ i
.;
>-
-i-
— i —
-J
_^-
tH
1
I
1
-—
--+--
"~.
:"z
ZZ
—
-::
:z:
1 :
--
—
—
—
—
—
_J
—
—
^
1
1
n
1 .
f«
'?i
\"
I'ii
^
?;
01
^
vM
■5?
-^
Nl
"^
1 •( , o(
A^i i^i
- M
"1
z;
1-
-----g
I_
-
M
,''"^' ^
O
K
r ^ ; =^
1^ -t^ ---
t>J
v"<
—
—
1
■1
I ^t . cr
'>J
Vi <
"^
'X
i.^
zAzx^:^
_. ; c- ; "> .
■ 1 ^ L '^
:z
..f-[^.
'aM
■^ h-^-P:
—
--
—
ni
1
1
-; 1^ h--
1 1
'
1 ,
i
'>
0~ ; n
~l_iiJ
i4_i '-! i ^
;.-'
' ^
i
V ill
1
pii
i 1 *^ ^
^\t
i?
'1 1 .'5
;;--
:'»:
z
-i^
i-
- -
-^- -}-f
t-
--
" r;-'
--{'
'C3
--1^.
c
"
V
1
-> l~
H^^---
t
-Z
■^
0
z.
■ t-
z.
—
o
^
.Ni
1
L
—
1
c
vj
1
^f
1
1
1 i
!
^
-
i
1
1 1
1 ■
1
1
1 1 j
—
t=
-
—
—
-
--
—
—
—
._.
-
,__
—
1
—
—
—
— f-
\—
— i—
—
— -
—
pi —
-—
-—
-1 -
—
-
—
—
— {—
i-^
—
—
,. i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
V
1
1
c
i •
i ' r
.1:
■•' .-.
ll
-
—
=J
4789
-
1
1
1
1
•J;
j
1
!
1
— i —
[I
—
—
—
—
—
IZ
~1^
—
-
-
-
-
—
--
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
—
—
—
~
—
—
—
—
kv
^
— 1 —
.._
"'
~
~
—
—
—
—
~
—
ZI
—
1 12
r^
^
:zt-
i-^y-
t--
—
:?i
z:
P-.
—
—
■-
—
—
—
—
—
._.
~
—
—
— H —
—
—
~
=
—
"■""
~
r-
it;
~
— '
ZZ
—
—
ZT
—
—
--
rh
—
=
1
:::q
--■p^r
—
1
— I—
1
— ^ —
1
1
^
1
1
-1
=
--1 —
—
^ 1 i
1
---
~
-
-it
—
I
-■
zz
"t"^-
r^
!
-
-l-H
--
...__
._
—
1^^
/^ ■
Is
_j 1
~~
— t - 'i -
-li-
-
:-f-
--
-
—
-•
—
_...
__.
...
—
1
-I"
—
1
-■i—
t
Z'2
TT^.-H
1
--
--
—
—
—
r
--
...
-
.-
._. 1 .._
-.-L.I..
—
1 vJ
'•^
>^^ 1
j
1
; 1
_j 1 i ; i
-
^:
-^
-'■rl
1-
■
—
:-:
'SS
--
—
_j-:^-
}-
~
-
..J
__..
-
—
—
ri -4-"^
./ i?;. , - !
1 —
--
—
—
—
1.1 ..
I UO] 'sT
1
_i 1
"^rU-i^
" -^
-•
'SI
':::
-'!'
:z
-
1
; -i
' **'
-4^-^
-^-^
-i"-L\^
• V)
M^ ; N
^^'j .
1
1
k
Q,
rC 1 »i
!?
i
1
1
~l
.!!»-,- U--^
- 1^ -
i
_..
_!'
'-'
...■
- - - I-
■/A'li
Zl
■ M.,
■fT^--
o
., -
-M-
< <-
1
'■ /^"»
q-i-^-
"1
._ _t>i _
-i
- ...i.-
: j
-r-
-i(W
-^
!
i 1 ■
^ "i
i
1
1 , j
1 1 ' '
' 1 ; ■
^ 1 1
1
—
...
--
I !
-■■ f-
■
<■ ^
_„i__.
i
^
1
>
i
—
—
■ -
-
-
-
" 1 r
i t - 1 :
—
^-
! ^
"5^
iK! r^
^-?^
! it
-■
i
j 1
^ ! -^
---■:;--i ■
-'-
=
—
— ■
17.
^^
-~
.....
1
—
, <3
u- ]
;
f^^jl
Ml 1
V
-
'
~^A- -
1 1
....
i
1
1
1
1-^ 1 i
i
1 1
1
^_.JJ ;
Mil
1 :
!
■ -
i 1
1
i 1 1 1----
'_.!'."
~
z_
-i-i- 1 i
: 1 1
' i
1 1 ; t-
' i
1 Y
1
1 \ k. i »-
Ji_ 13
t ^
1
1 1 ■ 1
1 1 i
! 1 ;
-ii-
" 1 ^
:::i-
-_-■'—
l"
— 1 —
:-r±-
;: 'J
— ^^i ^
^
^
^
"
—
'
-■
....
._.
1
! 1 -
...
« -1 4;
1
1
— I —
1
T
r , 1.
' 1 1
1 ! 1
1
'"1
1
1
'
T -'
t
1
j
1 1-
1 -\-
z:
:.-".
-"1
- —
—
—
--
-
1
- 1 t
1
1
' 1 i 1
—
—
^-
—
—
!3
i^
1 1 ;
1 1
i
3
; ly
1- 1-
-
-
_..
■l^r-
—
^-
J-_ 'A '- - ^
—
. . . ...J .
•—- ^-5v ■■ H
=^- i-J
?
' Ml
■ -
—
— 1
?a .-^
i
1
1
1
1
1
!
!
1
i
1
h
i I
1 i
1
1
1 1
1 1
: 1
i 1
1
i ;
!
!
i
-.
i
!
1
i
I
\\ \
cs; r>
^ : -r
1 ^^
1
4790
Exhibit No. 211 1
Month
Number of
employees Classification
1971:
January
February...
March
April
May
June
July
August
September.
October
November..
December..
44
Salaried
and fees.
54
Do.
55
Do.
56
Do.
56
Do.
56
Do.
48
Do.
55
Do.
71
Do.
81 Salaried,
tees
wee
klys
96
Do.
106
Do.
Amount expended for salaries and fees
Month:
January 15 $16, 156.36
January 29 18, 349. 82
February 12 20, 153.91
February 26 20,313. 14
March 15 23, 417. 09
March 29 21, 561. 40
April 14 22, 079. 42
April 29 24, 764. 76
May 13 24. 637. 70
May 27 23, 778. 07
June 15 27, 585. 19
June 30 19, 809. 40
July 14 19, 818. 06
July 29 20,247. 72
August 12 19,844. 63
August 30 20. 297. 54
September 15 24, 676. 81
September 30 31, 489. 43
October 15 27. 668. 09
October 30 28,220. 79
November 15 29, 357. 61
November 30 30, 112. 43
December 15 30, 921. 22
December 31 34, 464. 46
Notes
Dates
Action taken
Staff cuts
June 15,1971
10
Salary cuts
. .do
10 to 15
Various increases
1971
10 and 11
Month and day
Number of
employees
Classification
1972:
January..
February.
Mar. 15..
Mar. 30..
Apr. 12..
Apr. 20..
May 12..
116 Pays.
126 Do.
113 Do.
33 Do.
37 Do.
86 Do.
17 Do.
4791
Payroll
Date:
January 13, 1972 $30, 784. 49
January 27, 1972 36, 901. 10
February 15, 1972 39, 937 19
February 28, 1972 43,208.55
March 15, 1972 42 497 47
March 30, 1972 6 164 13
April 15, 1972 5] 359. 23
April 30, 1972 43, 150. 37
Reductions in Staff and Pay:
Date : Action taken
Feb. 29 5 pay cuts.
14 staff cuts.
Mar. 15 29 staff cuts.
1 pay cut.
Mar, 30 23 pay reductions (out of 33).
Apr. 12 4 pay reductions (further).
23 pay reductions (maintained).
3 staff cuts.
Apr. 20 70 staff cuts.
31 pay reductions (further).
May 31 8 staff cuts.
Notes : Muskie Convention Committee — June 1 through July 13 there were
12 paid staff.
\
4792
Exhibit No. 244-5
October 5, 1972
4117 Leland Street
Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015
Mr Berl Bernhard
1660 L St. , N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Dear Berl:
The best record of contributors that I have knowledge of
is on a magnetic tape of contributors that was created on March 27,
1972, It was to include all contributors of less than $1,000 as of
March 15, 1972.
This tape consists mainly of direct mail contributors, but
also contains names of those who had contributed less than $1,000
to non direct mail fund raising efforts. Each contributor listed
has a code describing the list or event that was the vehicle for
requesting the contribution. Each record also shows the amount
contributed.
The tape contains approximately 17,000 names and addresses
and represents approximately $251,000 in contributions. Senator
Muskie's staff have had the only copy of this tape since the end
of the campaign.
I hope that this information will be helpful.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Jonei
4793
MUSKIE FOR PRESIDENT
(202) USA-
SUriJECT: Direct Mail Final i<eport
TO: bernhard/l:itchell/Kline
or write
K Street NW, Washington, D.C.2000<
KAIL
LI3T
' 5/14/71
CC3T
20,990
>2UA;;TITY
:-:o. OF
.y-.GLT.'.'T
:S .(.iCZlVED
42,296
Tofit
A
171,545
2212
21,306
B
7/15
3,769
39,000
720
15,553
11,704
C
0/26
3,667
40,544
1271
16,170
12,509
D
10/18
2.613
19,900
88
1,341
(1,272)
E
12/5
9,396
79,732
1634
41,594
32,198
c
12/27
1/5/72
53,678
460,652
4922
117,039
58,361
S
4/19
2,947
23,721
1?22
26,682
23,229
TOTAL
102,060
043, 2C2
12069
2fj0,801
159,115
/y^r /icc.,.,<i ^.. e^cL^y.'>- --"'^/^^
TV Announcement 1/4/72
2132
23,610
irint»d en KX}96 r«cycM i
4794
MUSKIE FOR FRESIDF.MT ]
(202) USA-
or write
K Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20006
March 31, .1972
SUBJECT: Results of Direct Mail Efforts
TO: Be rnhard/Mitche 11 /Br ink/Kline
COST QUANTITY NO. OF AMOUNT
MAILED RESPONSES RECEIVED
MAIL
LIST
DATE
MAILED
A
5/14/71
B
7/15
C
8/26
D
10/18
E
12/5
F
12/27
1/ 5/72
3,769 39,000
3,667 A8,644
2,613 19,988
9,396 79,732
58,678 460,652
2212
718
1264
88
1626
4670
42,296
15,518
16,124
1,341
41,444
111,603
TOTAL
OTHER
TV Announcement 1/4/72
2080 23,008
PROFIT
21,306
11,749
12,457
( 1,272)
32,048
52,925
99,113 819,561 10,556 228,326 129,213
>«int*d on 10076 lecrded popw . . lo prolacl our cnvHonnMnt
4795
January 13, 1972
MEMORANDUM
TO: Berl Bemhard
FRCM: Dick Kline
RE: Janxaary to June Fundraising Schedule
Following is a rough estimate of vAien and vAiere we are ccnteitplating
various major fundraising events — events producing $50,000 to
$100,000 or more apiece between January 1 and the New York pri-
mary June 20.
The schedule takes into account vAiat appear to be the places in
v^iich the Senator will be cannpciigning during the particular
months.
JANUARY
New York — January 5, gross $66,000
Maine — January 14, v^iich will net approximately $100,000
(Saio — January 17, meetings with large givers in Cleveland
and Colunbus, v^iich could produce $50,000, but not
necessary immediately
Philadelphia — January 20, a $25,000 cocktail party
FEBRUARY
St. Louis— February 5, a dinner should produce in excess
of $100,000
New York — ^February 18 or 29, a $100,000 affair shooting
for $100,000
California — F^ruary 20-21, etffadrs in Los Angeles and
San Francisco to produce a minimum of $100,000
Connecticut — possible February 29, a $1,000 per person
reception shooting for $100,000
I«^RCH
Detroit — an event to replace the cancelled December event,
to produce an approximate $50,000
Chicago — an event for the Illinois primary to produce some-
thing like $100,000 if Geocaris feels the need for
such an event
Miemi— we should attenqpt a $100 affair to produce a net
$50,000 if possible
Milwaukee— we should atterapt $100 affair to produce a net
$50,000 if possible
I
4796
-2"
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
Pittsburgh — we shcxald try fca: sonething that will produce
$50,00 or more
Philadelphia — something to produce an the order of $100,000
Scrantcn— we should try for something there because of
Scranton's potential if ws can
Washington, D.C.— i^il 17, should produce $150,000
Boston — Something to produce $50,000 or so to ooincide
with the Massach\;isetts primary
New York or Connecticut — if we are well enough organized,
do something more here
Ohio — something big to coincide with the primary, to
prodxice $100,000
California — a series of events should be geared to produce
$200,000 or more
Baltimore — an event for $50,000 to $100,000 prior to primary
New Jersey — an event to produce $50,000 or $100,000
prior to the primary
Chicago — an event to produce $150,000 for national use,
vdiich Geocaris has already premised me
New York — sonething large that would coincide with the
New York priirary
4797
1971 - 1972
FUNDRAISING EVENTS
Tampa, Florida $ 20,000
Receptions
Los Angeles, California 125,000
Dinner
San Francisco, California 125,000
Dinner
St. Louis, Missouri 135,000
Dinner
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 25,000
Reception
Portland, Maine 172,000
Dinner
Miami, Florida 7,400
Reception
Tampa, Florida 10,000
Dinner
New York, New York 57,000
Dinner
Washington, D. C. 21,500
Dinner
Atlanta, Georgia 8,400
Brunch
St. Petersburg, Florida 21,500
Dinner
Houston, Texas 127,000
Reception
4798
Dec. 3 Detroit, Michigan $ 11,000
Dinner (cancelled)
Nov. 29 Newark, New Jersey 40,000
Reception
Nov. 23 Chicago, Illinois 45,000
Dinner
Nov. 22 New York, New York 10,000
Dinner
Nov. 19 Miami, Florida 18,000
Dinner
Nov. 14 Boston, Massachusetts 2 3,000
Reception
Oct. 29 New York, New York 18,0 00
Dinner
Oct. 22 Orlando, Florida 10,000
Luncheon
Oct. 21 Tampa, Florida 19,000
Dinner
Oct. 15 Kansas City, Missouri 40,000
Dinner
Oct. 9 Manchester, New Hampshire 2,500
Reception
Oct. 8 Providence, Rhode Island 18,000!
Reception
Oct. 7 New York, New York 25,000
Luncheon
Sept, 25 Chicago, Illinois 35,000
Luncheon
Sept. 20 Chattanooga, Tennessee 10,000
Reception
Sept. 19 Clearwater, Florida 10,000
Reception
Sept. 9 Portland, Oregon 5,750
. Reception
Sept. 8 San Diego, California 7,000
Reception
Sept. 7 Los Angeles, California 72,000
Dinner
4799
Sept. 6
Aug. 10
July 20
June 25
I
June 11
May 21
I
May 6
May 8
I
April 6
I
San Jose, California
Reception
Houston, Texas
Reception
Washington, D. C.
Dinner
Denver , Colorado
Dinner
Boston, Massachusetts
Luncheon
New York, New York
Luncheon
Miami , Florida
Dinner
Los Angeles, California
Dinner
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Dinner
rotal Amount i Dinners $ 954,500
fotal Amount I Receptions $ 463,300
I 1,417,800
$ 18,000
9,250
500
19,500
52,000
10,000
11,500
20,000
3,000
4800
Exhibit No. 244-6
GENERAL GUIDELIIIES FOR liUSKIE FUITDRAISERS
This is a brief statei.ient of guidelines for persons
soliciting contributions in support of Senator Ixuskie for
the Presidency. It should be noted that the guidelines are
very general and are not ueant to be considered comprehensive
rules for a person establishing or operating a political
conunittee. As such, these guidelines reflect federal legal
requircnients only. State lav; requirements should also he
checked in particular cases.
The guidelines do not ueal V7ith provisions of
election reform bills presently pending in Congress. If one
or more of the pending bills should be enacted, subsequent
guidelines I'ill be issued. It is possible, however, to state
at this time that the terras of lav;s passed after the date of
these guidelines v;ill not be retroactive. For example, if a
future statute were to require public reporting of all
contributions to an unannounced candidate prior to the
convention, it ^irould not apply to contributions received
before the law was enacted.
It is imperative, of course, that all persons
soliciting contributions in su^^port of Senator iluskic adhorc
strictly to all legal requireraents , federal, state and local.
Wot only the letter of the lav; should be observed, but the
spirit as well. Any funaraising method or technique which is
questionable under any lav; must be avoided.
The purpose of these guidelines is to facilitate
an understanding of the more complex areas of the law. The
guidelines do not attempt to delineate easily recognizable
forms of Illegal conduct such as promising political
appointments in return for political or financial support.
I. Uo contributions v;hatsoever should be accepted
on behalf of Senator liuskie or any coi.anittec supporting
his candidacy from any corporation, labor organization,
federal beuik or state bank. Such contributions should be
4801
- 2 -
rojectecl even if made as a loan by a ban]; and evon if the
loan is made in the ordinary course of business' by a
bank. Contributions in the form of goods, services or
loans frora any of tlie proscribed sources must also be
rejected.
This prohibition does not apply to contributions - -
— by partnerships or unincorporated associations,
— by individuals even though they are officers
or employees of a corporation, labor organi-
zation or bank,
—by funds composed of voluntary contributions
of union merobers or corporate employees.
XI. No individual nay contribute in excess of $5,000
in aggregate during any calendar year to the same political
committee or directly to a single candidate. A husband and
wife (or ali|^eother non-minor member of a family), hov;ever,
may each contribute $5,000 during a calendar year to the
seuae conmittee.
The practice to date of both political parties
recognizes that an individual may contribute $5,000 to
each of several political committees. The committees
receiving the $5,000 contributions may direct their full
efforts toward gaining the nomination for a single
Presidential aspirant, but it is expected that they will
maintain autonomy in doing so. Committees supporting
Senator iiuskie must be certain that their operations in
this regard comply with all pertinent la\/s in every
respect.
The term "contribution includes all of the following,
gift, subscription, loan, advance, payment, distribution,
or deposit of money or anything of value.
I
4802
- 3
III. Information regarding the neunes of various
coirmiittees can be obtained from Richard Kline.
IV. Federal lav; docs not require that contributions
made prior to the nomination be reported publicly . A
political committee does not have to report (to tlie Clerk
of the House of Representatives or clsev/here) contributions
made to it prior to the nominating convention so long as
the contributions are accepted for the purpose of
influencing the nomination and not the general election.
Contributions prior to the nomination to cor.iraittecs
supporting Senator Imskie will not be reported publicly.
All reporting requirements after the nomination will, of
course, be complied v/ith fully.
V. Persons soliciting contributions in support of
Senator huskie should avoid giving tax advice to potential
or actual contributors. Nonetheless, the tax ramifications
of such a contribution can be outlined in general terms.
Contributions made by individuals, partnerships, or
unincorporated associations are not deductible, as business
expenses or otherv/isc, for income tax purposes.
The gift tax consequences of contributions to political
candidates or parties are more complex. Generally, political
contributions are in the nature of gifts, and they are
subject to a federal gift tax. Thus, any individual who
makes a contribution in excess of $3,000 in any calendar
year to a single committee, or directly to the candidate,
must file a federal gift tax return. Form 709. The
contributor is liable for a gift tax to the extent that such
a contribution is in excess of $3,000 unless he elects to
apply tlie excess amount against his $30,000 lifetime
specific cxeiaption for federal gift tax.
Contributions made by a husband or wife are considered
as made one half by each spouse. In such a situation a gift
4803
- 4 -
of $6,000 can be made v/ithout any portion of the gift being
applied against the specific exenption, but separate checks
by the husband and v/ife of not more tlian $3,000 each should
be used to avoid the necessity of filing a Forn 709.
The practice generally followed by individuals is to
treat contributions to separate political committees as
separate gifts and to claim a $3,000 gift exemption with
respect to gifts to each such committee. This is done oven
though the separate coi.imittees independently clioose to
utilize their funds in support of a single candidate.
VI. Questions regarding lluskie fundraising should be
directed to .
Ilr. Richard Klin&
lluskie Election Committee
1660 L Street, W. VJ.
Washington, D. C. 20036
202-033-3050
4804
-i •> 4 'i ', : " " f ■■' J ',. .' •* .'.
/i;.U\f ^^ ■;' Vi Vi? '■/!•■:: '■
MEMORANDUM
TO: All Persons Handling DATE: April 10, 1970
Contributions
FROM: Robert L. Nelson 7/:^'
SUBJECT: Contributions
To insure appropriate control of all contributions, they must
be forwarded to 1660 "L" Street, N.'W., where they will be
processed .
Acknowledgements are to be sent by Senator Muskie and Mr. Semcr
to each contributor. Form letters will be used in most cases.
However, in the event of large contributions directly attributed
to the efforts of one person, that person will acknowledge the
contribution with an originally worded letter. The check and
draft of the acknowledgement for the Senator's signature will
then be sent to 1660 "L" Street, _N.W,, Washington, D.C. Letters
for Senator Muskie's signature will be typed up in this office
and forwarded to the hill for signature and mailing, along with
the original letters from contributors. Contributors' letters
must be returned to this office for filing. Mr. Semer's acknow-
ledgements will be handled in his office, the "L" Street office
receiving a copy of each acknowledgement for its files.
Contributions in excess of $100.00 and those not from individuals
will be noted in a memo which will be circulated to Messrs. Semcr,
Nicoll, Bernhard and Nelson prior to deposit.
The main objective is to insure that all contributions are approved
and properly acknowledged.
RLN/sal
KONTiitrH :
imuolas d.
THOMAS A
jimvo sxi
■XAlTOHIl <
KALPK A. M
FStAKCIS T.
aAMKB B. PtTTLSKXir
4805
Exhibit No. 244-7
I^W OFrlCEK
Capun & Drysdale
UOl SEVBNTEEKTH STREET, K. W.
WASHINOTOK, D. C. 80030
TSL. ( Boa ) ava - aaoo
October 27, 1971
Attachment 4
■oaxRT H. ELUOTT, an.
Mr. Peter Brink
Muskie Election Coiranittee
1660 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Dear Mr. Brink:
In accordance with your request, we have reviewed
the memorandum entitled "General Guidelines For Muskie
Fundraisers," which we enclose bearing the date October 27,
1971. It is our view that these guidelines accurately
reflect the present law and practice.
CS£<L.^U—
Enclosure
4806
Exhibit No. 244-8
E R M s T
ERNST
S THANK LIN C ■> ri £ i: 1
BOSTON, MASS. 02IIO
June 10, 1971
, ' iP o
Mr, ElJol. Uobiiiron
BlRluipr. lane . ; .
lUti[-,!i.-iiM, Hns:).icIiuiic-tLs 020'(3 "
Dear Hi". Uobinson:
At your request, vjc have reviewed the tax conoiflernllons of maktiic
polltJ.c.nl contributions with gifts of appreciated property to a politlc.Tl
party, political coimnittcc or politician.
Generally, there should be no income tz:: incurred in the making, of
a politic.ll contribution to a i!On-relj:tocl individual or political party. Tlie
Internal Revenue Scivice !;r.: r-jlod rlu-.t a political carr.paiyn pift reccivod by
an Individual or by a political oreani:;:'tion is not taxable jucor.i^j to tl.;; re-
cipient e.-.cept to the extent that it is diverted from political cr.nipaign nu--
j-oEcs to the personal use of the candidate or other individu;:!. Convor.iely,
the: doiii>r \;ill receive no income lax deduction for hia contribution. (Revenue
Uu line 5'i-CO).
The use of « "bargain sale" arranjjemcnt, in ;,hi.c!; the donor sell.';
rppri'ci.iLuu |.i-;-.pc-..i;y to •'■■^^ political ori;auis:ntion fot uii ar.ount lC5s th.-n
its fair market value, should cause no iliffcrcnt ir.cop'e lu.\ tcsul: th;VA ;iv.-»-
viously r.tatcd. Clearly, the donoi' is not assicning earned income in the
form of npprcciated v.ilue because there is no warranty that such appreciation
voblJ be realized had the taxpayer retained t(ie property. An analogy c;.n bo
made to the situation in \;hich the taxpayers, under prior lav/, vjere able to
sell .ippraci'ifcd )>rcperty to a recocnized public cliarity for '.ho?r bosis (cose)
in the projierty and obtain a charitable dcdu'Ction for the full f o.J r luarkt-t value
of the pi.oiiorty at the date of tlie sale. In order, to contra/cna this tax nci-
vantncc, the Internal Revenue Service had to seek and win Icjjiclativc approval
throu;>,li i statutory amendment incorporated into the Ta:; Reform Act of l'jG9.
There presently exists no statutory provision, or any leslsl^flvc
propor:al which vould treat all or a portion of the appreciation as taitable in-
come to the donor i.i tlie instance of a legitimate politlcnl contribution.
N;itur.il ly , the yift of any property bein^ used in a trade or busincr.3 whlcli
w.Tu the tubjecl of the iiivei;tnirni. cr>jdil will trif;i;er the investment credit
rcc.ipture rules. However, such a gift i;ould not initiate the Section 1245 (per-
sonal property) and Section 12jO (real property) recapture rules.
4807
iu N i>T &' cn ri :i I
Mr. f. Robinson -2- June 10, 1971
Internal Revenue Code Section 2501, pvovidcs a tax on the transfer
of property by i^lCt during, a calend.if year by .-.i\y iiulividuc;! resident or non-
resident. The i;ift tax is (jcncrally iwposcd when property is transferred for
leso than an adccpjate and I'ull considor.Ttion in i.ioney or nionny'u worth. The
amount by which tlic fair VvtIuc of tlic property exceeds the consideration is
doomed a cl^C and is inclmlihle in coi.-pitting the amount of taxable gifts made
diirJnc tlic year.
Althoiii'.li there arc national elections every two years, the Internal
Revenue Ccrvicc lias never dealt witli the status of a political conunittcc as a
donee of u gift. Corjncnrntovs and text writers havo "only i;iven brief considera-
tion to the gift tax question when discussing the overall tax consequences of
political giving and receiving. Therefore, the relationship of political con-,
tributions to the gift tax statute is largely an unchartered area of the tax
law.
However the Internal Revenue Service has ruled that any Individual
wlio maltcr; a contribution or gift in excess of $3,000 in any one calendar quar-
ter (forn.orly calendar year) to a political party or to a cnndldnte for public
office must file a Federal Gift Tax Return. The Service further stated that /
the gift splittin;', provisions which allovj contributions or gifts made by a
husband or wife to a third party, to be treated as if made one lialf by each
spouse, v'ill apply if the stipulations of the Code are met. In order to comply
with the Code requirements, (a) each spouse must be. a citi;;eri of the United
States at tlie timi; of the gift (b) tlie parties must be married at the date of
tlic gift and tliroiij-.hoiit the rcuiaindcr of the calcndaf year and (c) n tir.icly
cunscut Lu the gift 2>pli L Lilt); pi'uvisious must he iiiuul: in Lhu t'CLipcCtlvC gift
tax returns of the iiusband and wife.-
The Code (Section 2503(b)) provides an annual exclusion of $3,000 per
donee, in the case of gifts (other than gifts of ' future interest in property)
made to^ any person by the donor during the calendar year. NO definition ot the
term person is made in the gift tax rcgi-lations. The general definitional pro-
visions cf tl'.o Code , dcfi-.'.a tl-.e term "povsoi".". as including a "ccTnittcc". Soma
furtl^er authority does exist v;hich supports the proposition that a "political
coiiniil toe" is a "person" for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. Political
committfjcs as contrasted to parties arc considered "taxpayers" for the purpose
of federr.l employiricnt taxes. Thus, since the govern-Tient has already recognized
political committees as "taxpayers" and because one must first b.2 a "person"
in ordc'.i to be a "taxpayer", it is a short step to the conclusion that a poli-
tical committee is a "person" for tax purposes.
A "present interest" that qualifies for the $3,000 annual gift tax
exclusion is defined in the Treasury regulations as an unrestricted right to
linmcdlate use, possession or enjoymciit of the property. Monies received by
Q political coiiuuiitcc are generally subject to expenditure iir-mcdiatcly for the
4808
tUNSr N LRNST •
Mr. E. Koblnson -3- June 10, 1971
direct benefit of tbc candidate or for indirect "support, such as by funding
of local or state dolcxatcs or candidates whose support <nay later prove fruit-
ful. Diicausc the donation is to the candii'ate's committee rather than to him,
and because the co:iii\iii:tee has the inOTodintc right to uue the douatlon, it-
would appc.-ir that a gift to a political co;.JiiitLee ;;ould constitute a gift of
present interest.
nuis, property worth $6,000 rtorc than the consideration received by
tlie donor for the trar.s terred proi)erty can be gifted in any one calendar year
wo a political jo.rcnittO'; without subjec t infi the donor to a gift ta>:, provided
the gift spLlttinj provisions are availed of. Gifts in excess oi $6,000 to a
political cor.jiilttce i/oiild be subject to ta:c unless the donor had a sufficient
nnioiint of his $30,000 lifetime exe;iiption remaining to offset the taxable portion
of the gift.
In addition, since political conmittees proliferate during election
without challenge in order to bypass reporting and other requirements under
federal la*.; it is conceivable thic a series ef srr.a]l "iftc f^O 000 or less^
to a cerlcG of political coiw.iittees by an individual donor should abate any '
federal gift tax on the transfers. This ho;.ever is an unlitigated conclusion
which might not find support from, the viewpoint of the Internal Riveuue Service.
We trust the above discussion provides meaningful insight Into the
tax conGiderationn of political ccntributionr. . If you Iiave any questions '..'e
will be happy to discuss them at your convenience. .*''
Very truly yours.
^
\
Ara : iv
y^ k. Frank Barry\ ^.j--^^
4809
Exhibit No. 244-9
Februaey 28, 1972.
Mr. Tadeusz Dziekanowski,
Teddy and Alex Meats and Provisions, Inc.,
219 Ferry St.,
Newark, N.J.
Dear Mr. Dziekanowski : I want to thank you for your kind contribution to
Senator Mu.skie".s campaign. It is deeply appreciated.
However, fetleral law proliibits ils from accepting contribution.s from corpora-
tion.s. We would, therefore, appreciate greatly your replacing this corporate
check with a personal check to avoid any possible question in this respect.
Again, may I convey Senator Muskie's sincere appreciation for your support
and assistance.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Kline;
National Finance Administrator.
The letter reproduced above was also sent to the following contributors on
dates shown :
February 29, 1972 February 29, 1972
Mr. Joseph Di Gerlando, Inc. Mr. David Goldman
1936 West Buffalo Avenue, Cleanvater Golf-Park, Inc.
Tampa, Fla. 33607 P.O. Box 4627
February 22, 1972 Clearwater, Fla.
Mr. Stanley L. Cohen March 14. 1972
633 N.E. 167th Street Mr. Stanley Pacocha, Treasurer
Suite 700 Polish Pulaski Club. Inc.
North Miami Beach, Fla. 33162 79 Maple Street
Easthampton, Mass.
I
4810
Exhibit No. 244-10
First "Canuck" letter - Manchester Union Leader, Feb. 24, 1972
Feb. 17, 1972
Deerfield Beach, Fla.
Mr. Loeb
Manchester Guardian
Manchester
New Hampshire
Dear Mr. Loeb -
I saw you on TV the other night and my friends father
gets your newspaper. We went to Ft. Lauderdale to mett Sen.
Muskie - we were right beside him et Seed house when ^ne of the
men asked him what did he know about blacks and the problems
with them - he didn't have any in Maine a man with the senator
said. No blacks but we have Cannocks.
What did he mean? We asked - Mr. Muskie laughed and
said come to New England and see. Could you right write me
the answer or print it in you paper - my friend gets it from
you - Thank you.
Paul Morrison
Derrfield Beach, Fla. 33064
4811
23rd Sept, 1972
Portland, malae
Manchester Union Leader
Manchester, N.H.
and
THE Portland Press Herald
Portland, Maine
Gentlemen; Last Fall I was approached by a manwho knew 1 was looking
for work, he offered a Job in florida, and said I could ride down with
him. On the way he said that the job he had for me had been filled, but
maybe he could find something for me to do. we stopped in West Palm Bch
overnight, at the motel some friends of his came to visit, and one of them
offered me $2500 dollars to play a joke, i agreed, and that night was
introduced to a lawyer from boston and a man called 'P' or Pete. Iwas to
stay in an apartxoent they rented in Lauderdale. Imet with Pete and the
lawyer twice, they outlined what i was to do. i was to take a taxi, and
be friendly with the driver, so that he would remember me, and go to a
drug correctional place called "the Seed", there i was to mix and talk
with people so that they also would remember me, when Senator Muskie came
I was to try and get in line with Muskie and the camera, so the news dept
could prove i was there. I was given 1 thousand dollars, and told that 1
would get the rest at the finish of the job. Afew days later they came
to talk and we went to a place in the town of Hasgate to eat. the lawyer -
got the phone book and picked out the name 'paul Morrison' to be used
on the first letter to be mailed to Mr. Loeb . they also wrote out what I
was to say in my letter to mr Loeb, i was to copy it on a typewriter, and
mail it when i was told. During these meetings, there was some talk
between the men, and some of it I remember. 'we have to head off Muskie or
if he wins that means 1980 before THE M^ could get in' then Pete kept
saying 'Mcgovem cant win, so it means THE M^N in 76. No name was ever
mentioned it was always THE MMI.
I always had to go to the near shopping center for coffee every day at
ten am,. Senator Muskie came to lauderdale and did go to The seed, i
dont know how they know, but he went there, so did I . a few days later
i met the lawyer, and he said mail the letter, the one i wr*te, i did.
he said that i wouldnt see him again, the money would be paid to me
after i returned to boston. That was the last time i saw him at the
coffe shop. Isaw Petes picture in the paper, something to do with Mcgovem
but i dodnt know who he was. when i came north i called the lawyer in
Boston, he denyed having any money for me and said Clam up, or it will
be the bay for you. i came to maine to tell Sen Muskie right In front
of Mcgovem, but i was too scared, so i borrowed a typewriter and now
i am all finished, it was a dirty trick. MrLeob has my signature on
my other letter so you can be sure this is true.
'^cuyMl'^' ^^M^rU^/^
A TRUE COPY
4812
[From the Bangor Daily News, Sept. 27, 1972]
Damaging "Canuck" Letteb Reconsidebed
(By John S. Day)
Manchester, N.H. — The Manchester Union Leader Monday launched an in-
vestigation to determine whether or not its so-called "Canuck" letters published
last spring were an elaborate hoax, financed by politicians who wanted to "stop"
Sen. Edmund S. Muskie's presidential bandwagon in New Hampshire.
According to Arthur Egan, the Union Leader's top investigative reporter, one
of the key figures in last spring's "Canuck" affair wrote to publisher William
Loeb Sept. 23 claiming that he was paid $1,000 to make up the entire incident.
The letter implies that supporters of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D.-Mass., and an
aide now working for Sen. George S. McGovern were the brains behind the hoax.
The Union Leader, it should be pointed out, for years, has waged a ix)litical
vendetta against Sen. Kennedy. Last summer the paper published a story claim-
ing that Kennedy and his college roommate. Sen. John Tunney of California,
wined and dined two young ladies in a boat off the Maine coast. That article was
pretty well discredited by the national press.
According to Egan, who wrote that story, the newest "Oanuck" letter was
mailed to Loeb from Portland last Saturday by a man calling himself Harold E.
Eldredge. He said a copy went to the Portland Press Herald. (A spokesman for
the Press Herald said that newspaper has not received Eldredge's letter, but
was told one might be forthcoming by Egan).
The letter, which Egan says will not be published by the Union Leader until
"I can put my hands on (Eldredge)," tells an incredible tale rivaling even the
Watergate affair in high political intrigue. If it's true, and there is no real proof
it is at this point, the letter could turn out to be a political bombshell.
Eldredge, looking back at the New Hampshire primary, was one of two alleged
participants in Sen. Muskie's conversation about blacks and "Canucks" at "The
Seed," a Florida drug rehabilitation clinic.'
A young man claiming to be Paul Morrison wrote to Loeb, detailing the con-
versation ; Eldredge, supposedly a 76-year-old retired Cape Cod resident, wrote
to Loeb confirming the remarks actually were made.
Loeb's publication of the letters, together with an unflattering profile of his
wife, Jane, prodded Muskie to an emotional outburst which contributed to his
loss in the New Hampshire primary.
The NEWS political column last Saturday, which is the same day Eldredge
allegedly was inspired to make a "clean breast" of the hoax, replayed the entire
"Canuck" affair and concluded that the Union Leader was never able to prove
that either Morrison or Eldredge really existed. A reporter from the Union
Leader, in fact, phoned the NEWS Monday to inquire if this paper had received
a copy of Eldredge's letter. The answer was no.
This is what the controversial letter-writer wrote to William Loeb, as dictated
word for word, by Egan :
"Last (Spring) I was approached hy a man who knew I was looking for work.
He offered me a job in Florida and said I could ride down wuth him. On the way,
he said the job he had for me had been filled, but maybe he could find something
for me to do. We stopped in West Palm Beach overnight. At the motel some
friends of his came to visit.
"One of them offered to pay me $2,500 to play a joke. I agreed."
The letter continues :
"That was the night I was introduced to a lawyer from Boston called 'Pete.'
I was to stay in an apartment they rented in Fort Lauderdale. I met with 'Pete'
and the lawyer twice. They outlined what I was to do. I was to take a taxi and
be friendly with the driver, so he would remember me, and go to the drug cor-
rectional place called 'The Seed.'
"There I was to mix and talk with people so that they would also remember
me. When Senator Muskie came, I was to try to get in line with Muskie and the
camera so the news department could prove I was there.
"I was given one thousand dollars and told that I would get the rest at the
finish of the job. A few days later they came to talk and we went to a place in
the town of Margate to eat. The lawyer got out the phone book and picked out
the name Paul Morrison ... to be u.sed in the first letter mailed to Mr. Loeb.
They also wrote out what I was to say in my letter to Mr. Loeb. I was to copy it
on a typewriter and mail it when I was told."
4813
Eldredge, next gives his recollection of some political-type discussions he over-
heard during those meetings in Florida.
"There was some talk between the men and some of it I remember. 'We have to
head off Muskie, or if he wins, that means 1980 before 'The Man' could get in !
Then 'Pete' kept saying, 'McGovern can't win, so it means " 'The Man" in 76'."
"The Man", Egan feels, has to be Ted Kennedy, but he says "I'm not about
to get boxed in by printing that type of story."
"I smell something here," the Union Leader reporter stated, "and I am doubly
suspicious on the heels of the Tunney thing." Egan said his newspaper is making
every effort to track Eldredge down, despite some misgivings about the possibility
of another hoax. Last spring the staff of the Union Leader called 51 town offices
in Cape Cod in an effort to get a lead on the illusive letter writer. They came
up with four Harold Eldredges, all about the right age, who for one reason
or other moved away from Cape Cod.
Eldredge tells about his encounter with [Nluskie at 'The Seed' and his plan to
apologize to the Maine Senator two weeks ago in Portland.
"Sen. Muskie came to Lauderdale and did go to "The Seed," I don't know how
they knew, but he went there (and) so did I. A few days later I met the lawyer,
and he said mail the letter, the one I wrote. I did, (and) he said I wouldn't see
him again. The money was to be paid to me after I returned to Boston. That was
the last time I saw him, at the coffee shop, [copy illegible] paper, something to do
with IMcGovern, but I don't know who he was. When I came north I called the
lawyer in Boston, but he denied having any money for me and said 'clam up,
or it will be the bay for you.'
"I came to Maine to tell Sen. Muskie right in front of McGovern, but I was
too scared. So I borrow^ed a tyi3ewriter and now I am all finished." (Muskie
greeted McGovern at Portland International Airport Sept. 15).
Eldredge, or the clever person who is writing these letters, concludes :
"It was a dirty trick. Mr. Loeb has my signature on my other letter, so you can
be sure this time."
Egan reported that there "seems to be some similarity" between the writing
in the original "Canuck" letters and the one Eldredge allegedly mailed to the
Union Leader last Saturday. Egan also reported that the Union Leader has
checked with the Florida telephone company and confirmed that there are four
'Paul ^Morrisons' in the ^Margate directory. There is no street address on Eld-
redge's Portland letter.
That's where the investigation stands at this point, Avhich is about the same
situation as it was last February, when the Union Leader printed sensational alle-
gations against Sen. Muskie — without any concrete proof that the charges were
true, or were merely a figment of a clever letter writer's imagination.
I
4814
Exhibit No. 244-13
[From the Evans and Novak column in the Washington Post, Dec. 12, 1971]
MuskiE's "Gold"
Sen. Edmund S. Muskie's campaign strategists, eyeing anti-poverty tax senti-
ment in California, are considering government-financed Senate hearings on tax
problems there to boost the Muskie-for-President campaign.
Specifically, they are discussing the prospect of the Senate Intergovernmental
Relations Subcommittee, headed by Muskie, conducting hearings on property
taxes during a .scheduled Muskie campaign visit to California Dec. 20 and 21.
The timing is crucial, points out a confidential intra-otfice memorandum by
Anna Navarro, who runs public opinion analysis for the Muskie campaign, and
Dan Lewis, a Muskie Senate staffer. After Muskie formally announces his can-
didacy on Jan. 4. the subcommittee hearings would be embarrassingly suspect.
Only up until that date, says the Navarro-Lewis memo, can tlie proposed hearings
"take advantage of free TV time before it is too late."
The purely political motive of the hearings shines like gold, based squarely on
the results of Miss Navarro's poll in California. ". . . Reading over the open-ended
responses (by voters polled) . . . makes it apparent that proi>erty taxes are all
important in this crucial state," says the memo. ". . . Capturing the issue is worth
a gold-mine to any candidate."
Miss Navarro and Lewis proposed that the Senate hearings be staged as a TV
spectacular, master-minded by Robert Squier, Muskie's resident media expert.
They add : "Squier agrees that it would be a brilliant visual event, particularly
if we can dramatize the effects of the property tax on elderly homeowners and
school children in poor neighborhoods."
Nor do the Muskie staffers think in strictly parochial terms of California. ". . .
Capturing the property tax issue would be great in places other than California,"
the memo advises George Mitchell, Muskie's top political operative. "Think of
all the schools that have closed in the last two years because citizens refused to
tax themselves anymore."
4815
Exhibit No. 244-14
[From the New York Times, Dec. 19, 1971]
A Republican "'Spy" in Muskie's Ranks Is Unmasked and Sent Out Into
THE Cold
(By James M. Naughton)
Washington, Dec. 18. — Despite her $25 contribution to the unannounced
Democratic Presidential campaign of Senator Edmund S. Muskie and her liand-
written note to tlie Muslcie headquarters offering advice on tactics to turn Presi-
dent Nixon out of otiice, Diane V. iloore has been summarily removed from the
Musliie mailing list.
The reason is that she works for the Republican National Committee.
Miss Moore, a 24-year-old researcher for the G.O.P., will not discuss it, and her
boss in* party headquarters will not admit it, but she is the individual who has
come to be known by the Muskie staff as the "Republican spy." In her own office
tliey prefer the title of "Muskie specialist."
The Republicans, waist high in campaign cash and knee deep in personnel,
have set up a task force to monitor, categorize and computerize virtually every-
thing that is said and done by Mr. Nixon's potential Democratic opponents.
doing research
Taking her assignment to heart, Miss Moore dropped in at Senator Muskie's
campaign headquarters in Washington in September, declaring that she was a
graduate student doing research in political science. She asked to be put on a
mailing list, composed mostly of journalists, so that she could recei.ve all of the
Senator's speeches, statements and campaign schedules.
Miss Moore wrote out a check for $25, ostensibly to help defray the mailing
costs, and promised to send in more money. On Sept. 13, Mr. Muskie sent her a
standard "thauk-you" letter, pledging to do "everything I can to merit your
continuing support."
Two weeks ago, Miss IMoore sent a IMuskie aide a note on her personal stationery
to say that, "after reviewing my finances, I'm afraid I'll have to wait until after
Christmas" to make another contribution.
In the note she offered to donate some time as a Muskie volunteer, congratu-
lated the Democrat's staff on its efficiency and professionalism and offered a few
"random thoughts and suggestions" for the candidacy.
TWO birds, one stone
The Senator could "kill two birds with one stone" — raising money and attract-
ing young voters — by organizing a "Muskie army" on the campuses across the
nation, providing "goodies like a newsletter" in exchange for $1 donations. Miss
Moore proposed.
She encouraged the Senator to hold campus question and answer sessions "as
much as possible." And. saying that it might seem "odd coming from a liberal
student," she urged Mr. Muskie to "disassociate himself more" from the New
Left and campaign as a centrist, because "kids respect guys who make up their
own minds."
Closing the note, she wrote, "Good luck in the campaign."
Two days later, an article appeared in a Washington newspaper discribing the
"opposition research" program at Republican headquarters and noting, without
naming her, that a young woman kept as close track of the Muskie effort as did
the Senator's press secretary, Richard Stewart.
"what can I say"
The Muskie staff went over its mailing list to try to determine who she was.
Sylvia Ehrhardt, Mr. Stewart's administrative assistant, concluded that everyone
seemed "legit" except Miss Moore. Another Muskie aide telephoned Republican
headquarters, asked for Miss Moore and was advised that she would be in the
office later.
Muskie headquarters de.stroyed the metal plate used to address mail to
Miss Moore.
4816
Asked to confirm her role as a sleuth, Miss Moore lauglied and refused. "What
can I say?" she said.
Robert O. Chase, her 26-year-old superior, said, "I just don't want to talk about
it."
It could not be determined whether Miss Moore's contribution to Senator
Muskie's campaign had come out of Republican National Committee funds.
4817
Exhibit No. 244-16
^ueA^nA^
COhiFlOSf^TI/9L
MEMORANDUM
TO: Senator Muskie
FROM: Eliot R. Cutler
f^y
SUBJ: Attached Memorandum
DATE: July 28, 1971
There are two copies of the attached memorandum on
your schedule for the fall and the strategy behind it. The attached
copy will be retained by you and I will retain the other one .
This has been reviewed by staff over a period of two
weeks and on Friday, July 30th at 2:00 p.m. , Berl Bemhard, Jack
English, Bob Squier, Barbara Coleman, John McEvoy and myself
will meet with you to discuss the contents of the memorandum and
get your decision on it.
(The companion memorandum on issues and themes
will be given to you at that time for your later review.)
**********
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 29
4818
CONTENTS
I. Introduction
II. The Context of the Schedule
III. The Proposal
■ IV. Flexibility
V. General Ass^i^ptions of the
Muskie Candidacy
VI. State Comments and Priorities
VII. Conclusion
Proposed Monthly Calendars
State Breakdowns
1
1
3
5
8
12
20
Appendix A
Appendix B
4819
I. INTRODUCTION
The four-month period between September and December. 1971 is a
critical phase of the 1972 Presidential campaign and it should be viewed as
a whole. It Is more than the opening lap of a long race or the time when
basic political organizing for 1972 moves into high gear. It is also the time
when your base of support can be broadened and consolidated; when other
candidates can be discouraged from making the race by your pre-primary
show of strength; and when your inability to maintain that position could
hurt your chances for nomination.
Your activity for these four months should reflect both strategic con-
siderations for that particular period and a general strategy which will en-
able you to win the nomination, win the general election and govern the
country. This memorandum outlines for your approval a schedule for the
months of September through December which would begin to implement that
strategy. After two weeks of discussion, the staff has agreed that the sched-
ule outlined in this memorandum is the minimum, essential schedule for the
fall.
This memorandum does not list all of the events, TV shows, meetings
and speeches that will appear in the final dally schedules. Those decisions
will be made by the staff as the fail progresses on the basis of the assump-
Uons and strategies outlined here and in the companion "Issues and Themes"
memorandum .
II. THE CONTEXT OF THE SCHEDULE
Because it represents the use of your personal time and energy, your
schedule is the key element in any campaign activity this fall. We can organ-
ize all the states and sign up hundreds and thousands of supporters , but if
you don't participate — if voters can't see you and hear you and touch you;
or at least see other voters in their place, then, all the work in the world won't
make any difference. Your schedule does not reflect all of the efforts being
made on your behalf — even all of the effort being made in connection with
what does appear on your schedule , but it does give us the means of coordinat-
ing all of those efforts with the one essential element — your time and participa-
tion. Little else in connection with any part of the campaign can proceed
until your schedule is set. Although hundreds of hours of work before and after
a fund-raiser will be necessary to make it a success, only a definite commit-
ment of two hours of your time will make it possible to plan the event or raise
any money. Likewise, delegates in most states will make no commitments un-
til they have had an opportunity to meet and talk with you. And you will stay
on top in the polls only if your recognition continues to increase and if people
see you and hear you .
The schedule that is being proposed reflects both what w*» '
we don't know — about the facts and about our political str?«*
4820
-2-
First, this schedule does reflect the general assumptions of your can-
didacy and their strategic implications. (See next section of this memoran-
dum.) As it is refined, it will also reflect the companion memorandum on
issues and themes. Second, this schedule reflects what we know of the
facts and of our political strategy. We know, for example, a good deal about
what primary states and what non- primary states are important. There are
some primaries that are mandatory, and others that you virtually must enter
even though they are optional by law (California and New Hampshire, for
example). In light of that knowledge, we have proposed that a significant
amount of time be devoted to several important primary states. As far as the
non-primary states are concerned, we know that virtually no time will be avail-
able for those states between the New York primary (June 20, 1972) and the
•Convention (July 10, 1972). And, we know, to some extent, which of those
states will be difficult and deserve attention this fall. We can make some
assumptions about your opponents in various prlmaury states (for example.
Senator Jackson appears likely to challenge you in Florida) . The state-by-
state review in a later section of this memorandum contains some of those
assumptions and their implications for your fall schedule.
Finally, this proposed schedule also reflects what we do not know.
Who are the voters "on the left?" How will the young vote? What are your
strengths and weaknesses? What are the most salient issues in the impor-
tant states? How well are you doing in certain states? Because there is
so much that we do not know, the proposed schedule is flexible in many
respects . As we get more information from our polls and from our coordina-
tors, the schedule will be refined and — if necessary — changed to refleqt
the new Information.
As you know, polls are being conducted for us during the next five
months in Florida, New Hampshire, California, Wisconsin and one state to
be named. These polls are extremely important to making further refinements
and necessary changes in the schedule. From them, we should get a clearer
picture than we now have of the voters' attitudes towards you, other candi-
dates and the issues. .
That information, along with your decisions about themes and issues
you emphasize in the campaign, will make it possible to schedule the right
kinds of events with the right kinds of audiences in the states which you
visit.
4821
-3-
Ilt. PROPOSAL
There are 122 days between September 1st and December 31st, in-
cluding weekends and holidays. We propose that you spend fifty-five of
those days, (fourteen in September, fifteen in October, fourteen in Novem-
ber and twelve in December) campaigning outside Washington, D. C.
During this time, we suggest that you visit thirty-two of the fifty states.
(As far as" the remaining eigthteen states are concerned, it is unlikely
that you will visit many of them either before or after the convention.)
Ample rest would be scheduled on the road. The use of a private Jet
or turbo-prop plane is assumed in this proposed schedule and substantial
progress has been made toward meeting our requirements in this connection .
We do not plan to have any marathon schedules. There will be a heavy em-
phasis on the use of the media, with a maximum of one media "event" per
day. "
If you accept our recommendation that you spent 55 days campaigning,
67 days will remain — to be divided between the other two major demands on
your time; rest and recharging and Senate business. (Some of those days
should be part of a ten-day vacation over the Christmas-New Year holidays.)
Although the purpose of this memorandum is to propose the minimum
campaigning that is essential during these four months, we recognize that
TOUT acceptance of the proposed 55 campaign days raises the principal ques-
tion: How are the remaining 67 days to be divided between rest, recharging
and Senate business? We feel that sufficient rest is crucial, and we have
considered the question of your attending to Senate duties. Three general
^SLldellnes are important:
1. Your participation in Senate business should be
limited to: (a) major speeches and proposals asso-
ciated with the campaign; (b) the disposition of
legislation which is your sole responsibility and
which cannot be handled by Senate allies; and (c)
absolutely essential roll calls. Your attendance
in the Senate, to the extent that it is necessary,
should be viewed in our strategy as part of your
campjaign.
2. Your out-of-town schedule should, to the extent
.. „ possible, make use of field hearings and other de-
vices to create the appearance of attention to Senate
business.
I
4822 I
-4-
3. Your rest pericxls can be concentrated either during
the middle of the week or on weekends. This choice
represents two conflicting alms;
(a) Giving you the option of attending to
Important Senate duties by scheduling
rest during the middle of the week; or,
(b) Maximizing out-of-town media possi-
bilities by scheduling rest periods in
Washington on the weekends, when
media audiences are substantially lower.
As best we can, we will balance these aims by .varying the rest
schedule and retaining flexibility. (The possible adjournment by October
31 may result in greater flexibility In this respect for the November and
December schedules.
4823
■ "5-
^:. FLEXIBILITY
This proposed schedule is flexible; only those days which are aister-
isked have been committed. It is important to retain that flexibility for
several reasons:
A. As a front-runner, you should retain more options
than anyone else; that's part of the definition of
your position. If and when you begin to lose those
options , you probably will have begun to lose your
position as front-runner as well. Furthermore, the
more primary states are shored-up early, the more
options you have — for later scheduling and for la-
ter decisions about the primaries themselves. There
are several ways in which the schedule should reflect
this precept:
(1) You should come out of the corner fast
in September — building a momentum
to which your opponents must react, in-
stead of finding yourself forced to react
to them. This way, even announcements
of candidacy by your opponents which may
precede yours will be seen as reactive.
It is for this reason that the proposed
schedule for September requires more
days out of town than any other month.
If follov/ed, you will visit all areas
of the country in the first push of the
fall.
(2) As a corrolary to that rule , the schedule
for November and December should be
kept fairly open. There is a possibility '
that the Senate will recess early in that
period. In addition, time should be avail-
able during these two months to attend to
critical states, to put out fires, and to re-
act to new information. (Some commitments
4824
-6-
^0
for these months can and should be
made now, however.)
B. Regardless of our present readings about the impor-
tance of various states or the strength of youi^various
opponents, we must also assume that things will change.
As state laws change, or as other candidates leave or
enter the race, our strategy and the schedule will have
to change. Furthermore, we must remain flexible to re-
flect 'new information and new perceptions about your
strengths and weaknesses.
C. The period immediately preceding the November 2nd
elections has been left fairly open so that we can be
flexible in responding to the requests for your time
that are sure to come from candidates running in those
races . For example , it would be to your advantage to
campaign for Wendell Ford in the Kentucky gubernatori-
al contest if it appears that Ford may win.
D. A flexible schedule will help us avoid even potentially
nasty political situations. There are some we know
about now (for instance, the mayoralty election in
Philadelphia) , but there are others that can develop
almost overnight.
E. Finally, a flexible schedule can help keep the oppo-
sition off balance. We should mask our intentions
as far as primaries are concerned as best we can.
To do this , we may ded. de at some time this fall
that a field hearing on the property tax in Gary,
Indiana would be useful — not incidentally keeping
Senator Bayh and other candidates off balance as
to our plans for the Indiana primary.
The schedule will also remain flexible with respect to each particular
day. Although the schedule assigns each out-of-town day to a state, in many
instances we have not made any final decisions concerning specific cities to
visit in each state or specific events for the schedule. Before the staff makes
final decisions on these matters, our in-state and out-state coordinators will
be asked to come up with the best options . (We also expect that there will
be times when the dates assigned to a particular state on the proposed
4825
-7-
schedule will not be satisfactory, and we anticipate having to make some
changes.)
On the other hand, we cannot ask our state people to arrange suc-
cessful fund-raisers, and we cannot lock-up the best rriedia events or forums
for speeches without sufficient lead time. This is the other side of the
flexibility coin and this is why your commitment to the entire four-month
schedule is necessary now. If any rational strategy or plan is to be followed,
the whole four-month schedule must be taken as a piece. For example, the
proposed schedule calls for at least seven days in California. For the seven
days to be spent as profitably as they should, they ought to be seen as a
mosaic and the planning for them should be done together. Otherwise, neither
the staff here nor the California staff will have any idea what to expect in terms
of your time this fall and the planning and use of whatever time becomes avail-
able is likely to be slipshod, inefficient and ineffective.
At this time, we are in a position to make the four-month commitment
proposed in the schedule , while retaining the necessary flexibility.
4826
-8-
V. r,F.MERAL ASSUMPTIONS OF THK MUSKIE CANDIDACY
The general schedule ( and the specific events) discussed in other
sections of this memorandum rest on a number of assumptions about the
native of °he Muskie candidacy. Although to some degree, tl^ese assumptions
sta^the obvious, they do recapitulate your staffs thinking in these ar.as,
and they represent the criteria and guidelines we will.use in refining the
schedule.
. Assumption I
You are and must remain a national candidate . A small re-
gional gain may be recorded in New England (New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
and Massachusetts) but your support extends over a broad spectrum of geo-
graphy, demography and opinion. This is one of your most Important strengths
and we must constantly reinforce it. This assumption implies several consid-
erations .
1 . You must enter and run well in a wide range
of primaries. The number you actually enter
and to which you devote significant personal
attention is in the final analysis less impor-
tant than their breadth. You must demonstrate
your vote-getting abilities in states as diverse
as New Hampshire, Florida, Wisconsin, Oregon
Nebraska and California.
2. It is important for you to campaign and be
visible nationally in order to maximize your
standing in the Harris and Gallup polls.
With respect to the polls pitting you against
the President, it is especially important to
maintain your strength among above-average
income, suburban voters who may be regis-
tered as Democrats , Republicans or Inde-
pendents , but who tend to switch from party
to party in each election.
4827
-9-
Assumption II
The other Democratic candidates currently in the race will
concentrate their political and financial resources in three or four states
before Oregon and California. Each of them will try to find the combina-
tion of your weakness and their strength which will provide them with an
early victory and build momentum. This means that even though you are
the front runner (with all that Implies) , part of the battle-ground is going
to be defined by other candidates and our versatility will be stretched.
We will run fifty separate campaigns with changing ground rules and chang-
ing opponents. This necessitates (simultaneously) an ability to shift gears
quickly. We will also have to develop ways to reinforce areas of strength
with events in other areas of strength.
Assumption III
You are now ahead , and our job is to keep you there . Con-
siderable benefits accrue to you because you are the front-runnel". We can
develop our own schedule, choose our battlegrounds, and command attention
in ways that are not available to other candidates. We must assume an
aggressive scheduling policy to take full advantage of this fact. A front-
runner can either look static with his eye toward maintaining his position,
or use the position to gain in strength and preempt moves by other candidates.
We should do both and try to make it look like the second . Some requirements of
of tills strategy are essential:
1 . We must maintain a steady momentum frbm
the beginning, wearing down opponents in
an Ohio State "four yards and cloud of dust"
kind of campaign. This means planning the
entire four month schedule leading into the
primaries as a unit. It means retaining some
flexibility in November and December so that
momemtum can be developed and reinforced
In critical areas .
2. Only a broad base of support will support your
position as front-runner and your image as a
winner. . And, the only way to develop this
'broad base is to identify you with as many dif-
ferent groups of people , their hopes and their
needs, as possible. This required injecting
both diversity and creativity into the schedule.
482^
-10-..,
It does not require, however, that meetings
with youth, labor. Blacks, et. al, be re-
peated in each state. On the contrary, if
the contacts are orchestrated correctly^and
receive adequate exposure, there will be a
spillover effect from state to state and even
nationally.
There are also times when the front-runner
must accept schedule items which may appear
reactive, but are actually protective. You
must be prepared to put out fires — to respond
to challenges from either the right or the left,
which threaten essential elements of the bread
base of support. .
Assumption IV
fin of your Senate votes and campaign speeches will not satisfy each oft
many disparate factions within the Democratic Party. In the next year, we
can assume that you will offend various groups within the Party on whom you
depend for support. We assume this will not take on the proportions of vot-
ing "wrong" on a 14b or a civil rights bill or aid for Israel. Nevertheless,
we must devote considerable attention to explaining effectively votes or
speeches which run contrary to the leanings of your normal constituency.
Our effectiveness in presenting the arguments for public actions is an impor-
tant test of the viability of the campaign. Ed Muskie is a unifier be-
cause he listens, explains, and develops an underlying trust.
Assumption V
Shortage of time and the overwhelming challenge of the cam-
paign dictate that all scheduling be oriented to national as well as local
needs . This highlights the Importance of the media in maintaining a strong
showing in the national polls . There Is no other way to reach people or to create
the vital aura of excitement and momentum. Beyond that, efficient use of the
media should focus national attention ajs often as possible on state and local
4829
-11-
events. Ideally, each campaign day should have one major media "event".
In this connection, we should have three related aims:
1 . We should increase your recognition fac-
tor especially among the normal Democra-
tic constituent groups where you are weak-
est, by showing you to people through the
use of television.
2. We should identify you with the everyday con-
cerns and problems of people by showing you
with them — with as many different groups as
possible in as many different situations as
possible.
3. The rule, to which there should be few excep-
tions , is that there should be only one media
"event" per day in any one media market; -v/e
should make every attempt to avoid "stepping
on our own story", (e.g. , scheduling a press
conference before or after a visit to a drug
center or a major speech.)
We will use the media successfully only if there is extremely
close cooperation between the communications , scheduling and advance sec-
tions of the campaign. The schedule for example, should pay almost as much
attention to media markets as to states. When possible, we should avoid
scheduling media events on the weekend since Saturday and Sunday are the
llghest media days. (Until the Senate recesses, this will often conflict with
the policy of resting during the week.) Without bending your style, your
media scheduling should be creative, exploring the possibilities of symbolic
communication, rather than shying away from them. (e.g. , the voter registra-
tion walk in California.)
Assumption VI
Your powers of communication make it possible to talk simul-
taneously with a wide variety of groups without soft-peddling the issues. This
asset should allow the schedule to reflect ^the suggestion made in the memoran-
dum on issues — that you occasionally talk "against the grain" of a group.
4830
-12-
VI. STATE COMMENTS AND PRIORITIES
Group I: Significant Primary States
1. California (271): California Is Important for more reasons '
than Its delegate votes and Its winner-take all, binding primary. It Is also
a meaningful gauge of public opinion as the largest state In the country, a
swing state In the general election and a state where we hope to raise a great
deal of our money. Although you have made two trips to California this year,
the January trip was not especially profitable in any respect. The May visit
was helpful. Although you remain the front-runner in California, the organi-
zational efforts of other candidates are producing gains for them. Kennedy, Lindsay,
McCarthy, and Humphrey may be candidates here. To strengthen your posi-
tion here, to discourage other candidates (notably Humphrey) from making the
race, and to raise needed funds, we recommend a minimum of seven days in
California during the fall — tentatively divided among a three-day trip in
September and two-day trips in October and November (7) .
2. Florida (81): The Florida primary is a mandatory, binding contest
where the delegates are elected by Congressional district. It seems clear
at this point that the Florida primary will be critical — a test of Wallace's
and/or Jackson's strength against you. Since this is a primary by Congress-
ional district and since the media markets in the state are well-separated,
your visits in the past — which have been concentrated in the Miami area —
must be supplemented by vlsist this fall to the central, western and northern
parts of the state. In addition, Florida will also be a major source of cam-
paign funds for the national campaign. We recommend a minimum of four days
in Florida this fall. (4)
3. Wisconsin (67) : The Wisconsin primary is similar in form to the Flor-
ida contest, but the challenge and the possible gains will be different. Com-
ing after the New Hampshire and Florida primaries, Wisconsin will probably
present you with a significant primary challenge from the left. Success here
— following successes in New Hampshire and Florida — could give you a
substantial momentum. A bad showing here could be serious. Personal
campaigning is as Important to the people of Wisconsin as it is to the people
of New Hampshire and Oregon. To consolidate your strength here, we recom-
mend a minimum of three days in the fall. (3) <
4. Massachusetts (102): The Massachusetts primary Is mandatory and
binding with delegates running on a state-wide basis. According to our
Massachusetts workers, one day in Massachusetts should be sufficient this
fall, with possible additional stop-overs for television coverage which will
4831
-13-
reach both New Hampshire and Rhode Island on the way to those other states.
(1)
5. Oregon (34): All of the candidates will be listed on the Oregon ballot,
with the likely inclusion of both Humphrey and Kennedy. In addition. Sena-
tor Jackson is popular in this state. Personal campaigning is important here
and you have spent only one day in the state in the last two years. Three
days at a minimum will be required in Oregon this fall, with the tentative plan
to schedule one day at the end of each California trip. (3) .
6. Nebraska (24): This is another mandatory Presidential, preference pri-
mary, although it is only advisory. (It is held concurrently with a binding
delegate-selection primary where the delegates are elected in Congressional
districts and at-large.) Senator McGovem, from a neighboring state and
with a good record on farm issues, could run well here (upcoming endorse-
ment of him by ex- Governor Frank Morrison will help him.) It appears, how-
ever, that you still lead in Nebraska and one day's campaigning in the state
this fall should be sufficient. (1)
7. New Hampshire (18) : You face the New Hampshire primary in much the
same position you faced your own re-election campaign in Maine last year.
The question is less whether you will win than it is by how much; a narrow
victory (to say nothing of a loss) could be fatal. As we all know, media cov-
erage in New Hampshire is difficult, so much will have to be accomplished
through Boston television. Person to person campaigning is crucial, and a
minimum of three days will be necessary for New Hampshire this fall. (3)
8. Maryland (53); The Maryland primary is binding and newly mandatory,
but the delegates are apportioned and elected on the Congressional district
level. One day should be sufficient for the state this fall, even though you
have not visited the state at all this year. (1)
9. Tennessee (49): This primary is also newly mandatory and is binding.
Senator Jackson could pose a major challenge in this state and we have not
devoted enough attention to it; you have not visited the state since last year.
Although we are recommending a minimum of one day in the statue at this time,
we should carefully reassess that evaluation after we have the results of oxir
state poll. (1) , •
10. North Carolina" (64): Although this binding primary Is optional, it may
be difficult for you to avoid entering It, since Governor Scott has endorsed
you. The situation is complicated by the Governor's current unpopularity,
making it inadvisable at this time for us to plan on his running as a stand-in.
4832
-14-
The only recent .visit to the state was your trip to Wilson earlier this year.
We suggest a minimum of one day in the state this fall. (1)
11. Rhode Island (22): Although the Presidential preference primary in
this state is only advisory and is optional, it is a New England state where
you have a good deal of support from the party leadership. The Boston
television stations cover Rhode Island as well as New Hampshire, and the
three primaries can be financed and, to some extent, managed together. Your
one appearance in the state this year was not helpful in Rhode Island, and
we recommend one day in the state this fall. (1)
Group II; Other Primary States
1. Arkansas (27): This is a delegate-selection primary with no concur-
rent Presidential preference test. A keynote address to the National Young
Democrats Convention in November will also give you an opportunity to indi-
cate that Wilbur Mills will not get a free ride in his home state. (1)
2. West Virginia (35): The only time in recent years when the West Vir-
ginia primary assumes real importance was in 1960 when Kennedy effectively
eliminated Humphrey from the race and diminished the Catholoclsm issue.
The state is also poverty-ridden and has assumed symbolic importance be-
cause of that fact; but Tennessee could assume similar symbolic importance
and has a mandatory primary. West Virginia's preference contest, on the
other hand, is neither mandatory nor binding. It is only five days after the
Tennessee primary and on the same day as the mandatory Nebraska primary
It will also be the likely site of a bitter primary fight involving Senator
Randolph. At this time, there appears to be little reason for you to enter here.
However, you are committed to address the state Women's Democratic Conven-
tion in September, and this should be an opportunity to keep your opponents
off balance as to your Intentions. (1)
3. Indiana (76): The Indiana primary is an optional, binding Presidential
preference primary held concurrently with the election of state convention de-
legates. The National Convention delegates, elected on the b^sis of Con-
gressional districts by the state convention, are bound to vote for the Presi-
dential candidate who receives the highest number of votes in their districts.
There will probably be some changes in the law to comply with the guidelines,
but they will not be significant. Three impKjrtant features of the Indiana pri-
mary should be noted: (a) it is optional; (b) the filing and withdrawal dead-
line is March 23, following the New Hampshire primaury and the Florida primary,
but before the \Afisconsin primary; and , (c) the date of the primary Is only two
4833
-15-
days before the mandatory Tennessee primary (see below, the same day as
the North Carolina primary and seven days before the mandatory Nebraska
primary. At this point. It would seem unwise for you to enter the Indiana
primary. It will be difficult to Justify taking enough valuable time away
from other more Important — Indeed mandatory — contests to make a re-
spectable showing against Birch Bayh in his home state. Even if Bayh
made poor showings in New Hampshire, Florida and Wisconsin, he would
still be entered in the Indiana primary and probably would do well. On the
other hand, you probably would stand a good chance of beating Bayh in his
home state only if all the previous primaries produced both poor showings by
Bayh and victories for you. The catch is that you would be forced to make
a final decision on entering Indiana before the results were in from Wiscon-
sin. The chances of a pay-off do not appear to be worth the financial cost
and the campaigning time or the risk of a poor showing. Therefore, we do
not foresee you contesting Indiana and we do not recommend that any addi-
tional time be spent in the state this year (with the possible exception of
a field hearing in Gary on the property tax.) (0)
4. Alabama (37): Pass, unless a brief visit is combined with a trip
to Mississippi.
5. New Mexico (18): The New Mexico binding primary, held on the
same day as California, may present a low-risk high gain proposition since
the delegate votes are divided proportionately between the two top vote-
getters. We recommend devoting some time to New Mexico during a swing
through the Southwest in the fall. (1)
6. South Dakota (17): Pass, this fall. (0)
7. Washington, D. C. (15): (0)
Group III: Special Primary States-
1. Illinois (170): A new law has been passed by the Illinois Legislature which
gives candidates the opportunity to run pledged slates of delegates. There is
also a concurrent advisory preference primary. The. election of delegates is on the
Congressional District level. There is a good possibility that slates pledged to
you will run at least outside Cook County and it is possible that you. might enter the
preference ccntest. In any case. It is Important to spent some time in the state de-
veloping residual popular support for the primary and the polls, reinforcing your
strength with the organization and bringing pressure to bear on Mayor Daley. You
have not visited' downstate Illinois since 1968. A minimum of two days will be
needed In .the state this fall. (2)
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 30
4834
-16-
2. Ohio (153): There is no Presidential preference primary in Ohio;
the delegates -- who may run pledged or unpledged — are elected at large
and in Congressional districts. One day, spent in cities other than Cleve-
land, will be needed this fall. (1)
3. Pennsylvania (182): The Pennsylvania situation, legal and political,
is In greater flux than any other state. Although it probably will not be nec-
essary to enter the optional primary if it remains advisory, the state committee
Is recommending that it be made binding. Governor Shapp's and Frank Rizzo's
relationship and mutual or individual preferences are unknown. You should
spend at least two days in the state in cities other than Philadelphia this fall
(staying out of the mayoral race). However, what polls we have seen show
yau unusually weak in Philadelphia (vis-a-vis Humphrey, for instance) and
it may be necessary to visit that city after Rizzo's probable election. (2)
4. New Jersey (109); The primary Is optional and advisory; there should
be no need for you to enter it. One day in the fall (split among Princeton,
Newark and Bergen County) should be sufficient. (1)
5. New York (278): There Is no preference primary in New York, but it
is likely that candidates will be concentrating on the election of their slates
in the Congressional districts as if it were a preference test. Although we
are allocating five days to the state for the fall, additional evening stops in
New York City for fund-raising may be necessary. (5)
Group IV: Significant Non-prlmarv States
1. Michigan (132): The fund-raising possibilities here are good and your,
exposure in the state since 1968 has not been heavy. One day will be necessary
with some attention to cities other than Detroit. (1)
2. Texas (130): After this summer, Dallas will have been covered, but
that city has less Democratic money and fewer Democratic votes than any
other. Two more days will be needed in the fall to cover Houston, San Antonio,
Austin and El Paso. (2)
3. Mlssotiri (73): In addition to visiting with Governor Heames, we will
need to do some fund-raising In both St. Louis and Kansas City. (1)
4. Georgia (53): Your earlier visit to the state was successful. One more
day, or part of one, should solidify your position. (1)
4835
-17-
5. Virginia (53): One visit to the Tidewater area and some contact with
members of the state committee should be sufficient here. (1)
6. Connecticut (51): You have visited this state once since 1970 and
of all the New England states this will be the hardest to hold* A full day
this fall will be needed. (1)
>
7. Kentucky (47): We should keep our options open for a visit to Kentucky
in late October for gubernatorial candidate Wendell Ford (0)
8. Louisiana (44): Your trip to Baton Rouge was successful and we can pass
this fall. (0)
9. Oklahoma (39): Pass this fall, (0)
10. Colorado (36): Although the June trip to Denver may have been success-
ful financially, it was not a political success. Labor and the left were offended
by your appearance before a group of oilmen at a non-union hotel, and a stop
In the state will be necessary to repair the damage. (1)
11. Kansas (35): One visit to Kansas could be extremely efficient in terms
of delegate commitments and Governor Docking's support. (1)
12. South Carolina (32); You have not visited South CarolirB since your
nomination in 1968 and one visit will be necessary to secure Governor West's
support. It will also help solidify your position in the South. (1)
13. Iowa (46): Since Senator Hughes' decision, lowans have been most
friendly. You have been asked to address their annual state-wide dinner and
it could be combined with a visit to the state AFL-CIO convention. One day
this fall should be spent in the state .
14. Minnesota (64): If Senator Humphrey is not a candidate, you have a
good chance of getting a portion of the Minnesota delegates. Also, the Minne-
apolis media market covers a large part of northwestern Wisconsin. A visit to
Minnesota should be included in one of the Wisconsin trips . (1)
4836
^IS-
IS. Washington (52): Pass (0)
Group V; Other Non-Primary States
1. Arizona (25): For the sake of regional exposure, Arizona should be
covered in a brief Southwest swing this fall. (1)
2. Mississippi (25): Part of one day will be spent in Mississippi this
fall campaigning for Mayor Charles Evers and several sherrlff candidates. (1)
3. TTtah (19): Utah — and Governor Rampton — can be covered in the
Southwest swing.
4. Maine (20): The ground work in this state has been quite thorough
5. Hawaii (17): Pass (0)
6. Idaho (17): Pass (0)
7. Montana (17): Ditto (0)
8. Morth Dakota (14): Ditto (0)
9. Delaware (13): Ditto (Q)
10. Vermont (12): Your spring visit to Vermort was sufficient (0)
11. Nevada (11): Pass (0)
12. Wyoming (11): Ditto (0)
13. Alasak (10): Ditto (0)
14. Puerto Rico (7): You eure committed to address the Governor Conference
here In September. (1)
15. Canal Zone (3); Pass
16. Guam (3): Pass
17. Virgin Islands (3): Pass
4837
-19-
State offices have been opened in the following states:
California
Florida
Wisconsin
Oregon
New Hampshire
Nebraska
New York
In addition, significant groundwork has been done by Inside or out-
side coordinators in the following states:
Massachusetts
North Carolina
Rhode Island
West Virginia
Missouri
Kentucky
Washington
Delaware
Washington, D. C.
Ohio
Michigan
Texas
Coloidao
Kansas
Vermont
-20-
VII.
CONCLUSION
Understanding the caveats discussed in this memorandum (flexibility,
expectation of changes because of new information, etc.), the staff does
require affirmative approval of the proposed division of time and the out
of town schedule. The schedule will be no better than the planning and the
advance work and the planning and advance work will be no better than the
lead time you give the staff.
In the two weeks the staff has spent preparing this proposal, we have
reduced the number of days for out of town travel this fall to what we con-
sider to be the nlmimum required for a successful winter and spring.
4838
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED MONTHLY CALENDARS
SEPTEMBER - DECEMBER ,1971
4839
■/9
A
I-
^
e)
/I
d)
5
s
si
**
/]
^
3
•ZJ
Q
o
^
o
t
-o
:a
.yj)
j5
J
I
f=
tfO
^
< )
%
%
a)
^
s
*■
J
a!
^
5\
3
n
<£0
4840
^
)
5(1
^
41
■ 3
9
j^
-.
7
► a.
—
(/»
,«|
•^i
)
a •
\-^
40
5
. 3
^
i^
0
h^
4
■J^
<u
<j
I
• ^
.
•i
2
A
J
>
J
rO-i ..
C^
J
0
1 ■
'<r
^
e)
^/
^
%
^
■ *i
' ■ a
i
'^- il
•
3
I ■
4<
1
•/O
•I
0
•
X
\-
^
A
J
3
2
2
■a
a*
_3
-
■
Q
3
1
^
%
^
s)
O .
^
A
/>
iC
.
-
(-
'
1
• -■
^
c)
t)
^
4)
^
•.
■i
> ..
o
^
-s:
a
.3
£)
D
^
• .. J
•
•■
J
4841
< o
2.
. /9
M
\
•
t
^
tP
^
fi
p
_
\
d
1^
3
^
2
P
A
T-
0
(P
_
T
Q
<
^.
^
57
^
1
i
A)
- /
>
r^
o
•0
0
(0
^
^^r
^
t
.2
t
'I
i
<»
3
^
i
0
•
1*
J
.
1
J
d
^'
d
%
!5
"
a
A
*
%
^^
d)
d
^
5)
^
A
<4
«
- i
-
1'
C
-
1
3
59
S
5r .
A
i
A
4
<^
.
a
c
■^
,
£
4
•
4
J
«
1
-2 1
"O
.^0
-it
5)
/I
^
.-T-
^
ii
A
-
>
V
s
5
^
2
J
0
. a
-^ "'
3
•
_:
ol
'
4842
."«»
5)
^1
^
A
<
3
\
>
c
^
' ' ri
iJ
\
1
d
€?
^1
^
^
4
f
^l ^
•CJ
CI
•«^l ^,
f.
<+
1 d
*
J
^^1 ■
^
A
^
P
■ -3
^"
~%
i
ffl
1-
:i
•a
I.
o
1/
/J
1
o
■
■
c)
^
^
cr
-a
,
/^
■
■
^
3
d
:g
3
5)
?
A
ay
-
' 3
• •
^
s
a
3 ■
-7-
ill
^
jS
3
0
^ •
'• •
5<
_3
•
.:d
^
\J
o
^
^
. •
-0
«
0
/»
Of
3
T^ -'
"2
•
« " _
. •'
4843
APPENDIX B
The following table groups the fifty states and four territories in
five categories. It shows the number of days suggested for each category
and each state as well as the significance of any visits you made to those
states during the first eight months of 1971 and the possibilities for signi-
ficant fund-raising. The amount of time previously spent in a state often
understates or overstates the real impact of your visit.
4844
B-I
GROUP I - SIGNIFICANT PRIMARY STATES (11)
(These are states where it appears, at this time, that you may make a significant personal
effort in the primary. )
Significant Visits
Proposed visits
Significant
STATE
(In days) during
(in days) during
Fund-raising
Delegate
January-August
September -
Possibilities
Votes
1971
December, 1971
California
271
8
Florida
81
4
Wisconsin
57
3
Massachusetts
102
0
Oregon
34
1
Nebraska
24
1
New Hampshire
18
3
Maryland
53
0
Tennessee
49
0
North Carolina
64
1
Rhode Island
22
1
785
22
7
4
3
1
3
1
3
I
1
1
i
26
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No.
No
GROUP II - OTHER PRIMARY STATES (7)
(These are states where it appears, at this time, that you will not make a significant per-
sonal effort in the primary.)
Significant Visits
Proposed Visits
Significant
STATE
(In days) during
(in days) during
Fund-raising
Delegate
January- August
September -
Possibilities
Votes
1971
December, 1971
Arkansas
27
0
West Virginia
35
0
Indiana
76
1
Alabama
37
0
New Mexico
18
0
South Dakota
17
0
Washington, D C.
15
0
225
1
No
4845
GROUP III - SPECIAL PRIMARY STATES (15)
B-II
(These are states where a substantial number of delegates are at stake, but where a
Presidential preference contest is either impossible or unlikely,)
STATE
Delegate
Votes
Significant Visits
(In days) during
January-August
1971
Proposed Visits
(in days) during
September ••
December, 1971
Significant
Fund-raising
Possibilities
Illinois
170
2
Ohio
153
1
Pennsylvania
182
6
New Jersey
109
1
New York
278
1
892
18
2
1
2
1
5
11
Yes
GROUP IV - SIGNIFICANT CONVENTION STATES (15)
(Each of these non-primary states account for at least 1% of the total number of delegate
votes at the convention.)
STATE
Significant Visits
(in days) during
Delegate
January-August
Votes
1971
132
1
130
2
73
0
53
2
53
1
51
1
47
0
44
1
39
0
36
1
35
0
32
0
64
1
52
. 0
46 ■
0
887
10
Proposed Visits Significant
(in days) during Fund-raising
September - ' Possibilities
December, 1971
Michigan
Texas
Missouri
Georgia
Virginia
Connecticut
Kentucky
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Colorado
Kansas
South Carolina
Minnesota
Washington
Iowa
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
i.
12
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
4846
GROUP V - OTHER CONVENTION STATES (17)
B-III
(Each of these non-primary states account for less than 1% of the total number of delegate
votes at the convention.)
Significant Visits
Proposed Visits
Significant
STATE
(in days) during
(in days) during
Fund-raising
Delegate
January-August
September -
Possibilities
Votes
1971
December, 1971
Arizona
25
0
Mississippi
25
0
Maine
20
0
Utah
19
0
Hawaii
17
0
Idaho
17
0
Montana
17
0
North Dakota
14
0
Delaware
13
1
Vermont
12
1
Nevada
11
0
Wyoming
11
0
Alaska
. 10
0
Puerto Rico
7
0
Canal Zone
3
0
Guam
3
0
Virgin Islands
3
Q.
227
2
No
No
No
Yes
No.
Breaking down the proposed schedule on a regional basis, we pro-
pose that you spend fourteen days in the Northeast, five days in the Bor-
der states, twelve days in the Midwest, ten days in the South, ten days
in the Far West, four days in the Southwest .
A discussion of each state and the number of days allotted to It ap-
pears later in this memorandum.
4847
Exhibit No. 244-17
[From the New York Post, July 15, 1971]
51 Percent Say Ted Is Unfit fob White House
• (By Louis Harris)
Although 68 per cent of the American people believe Sen. Edward Kennedy
"works hard at his job and is a good U.S. Senator," no more than 34 per cent
feel "he has the personality and leadership qualities a President should have."
And one in three persons, 33 per cent, holds the view that "because of what
happened at Chappaquiddick, Senator Kennedy showed he does not deserve the
Presidency."
As a result of this mixed reaction, Kennedy now trails President Nixon sub-
stantially in the latest Harris Survey trial heat published last Monday. (Those
results gave Nixon 44 per cent, Kennedy 36 iier cent, Gov. George Wallace 13
per cent, and 7 per cent undecided. )
The Chappaquiddick incident two years ago this July 18, in which the Sena-
tor was involved in a car crash which proved fatal to a secretary companion,
unquestionably hurt Kennedy's chances. Although 51 per cent of potential voters
say they will not be influenced by the tragic accident, the one-third who criticize
him on this issue is politically damaging.
Chappaquiddick counts most as an issue among people over 50, white Protest-
ants and the college-educated. Women, however, are no more disturbed over it
than men.
Significantly, over 8 in 10 of the persons who are critical of the Senator over
Chappaquiddick are prepared to vote against him if he were nominated for
President.
A majority of the public, nonetheless, gives Senator Kennedy high marks on
two other scores :
By 68 to 20 per cent, people feel that he "works hard at his job and is a good
U.S. Senator." He is cited particularly for his efforts in the health field and for
his opposition to the war.
By 51 to 34 i>er cent, a majority also agree that "he is one of the few people
willing to take courageous stands on basic Lssues facing the country." This
sentiment rises to 60 i)er cent among Catholics, 62 per cent among Democrats,
and 77 per cent among blacks. Both his brothers, John and Robert, also had
majorities in the country who accorded the quality of "courage" to their stands
in politics.
But sizable numbers of voters also hold the view that Kennedy has gone as far
as he has largely on the strength of his family association :
By 57 to 35 per cent, a majority agree with the statement that Kennedy "has
gotten as far as he has because of his name."
This view is held by 62 per cent of the voters in the West, 60 per cent of the
college-educated, and 62 per cent of persons who are Independents in their
politics.
By 48 to 37 per cent, a plurality feels that Edward Kennedy "is not in the same
league with his older brothers." A majority of 53 per cent in the West, 52 per
cent of the college-educated and 53 per cent of the Independents share this view.
Clearly, the challenge to Kennedy is to prove to the electorate that he merits
his current prominence on his own rather than a legacy of his family's past
efforts. He is suffering from a form of comparison which has plagued the sons
and relatives of other famous men in American politics.
Of course, Kennedy has denied repeatedly that he is interested in the nomi-
nation in 1972. However, when asked directly, most people (44 to 31 per cent) say
that "although he denies it, he is really trying to get the Democratic Presidential
nomination in 1972."
The reaction of a majority, 58 to 29 per cent, is that "although one day he
might run for the Presidency, he is not ready for it now." Among major groups
in the electorate only among blacks do less than a majority hold to this view that
Ted Kennedy's White House aspirations would be premature now.
A key question in the survey of 1614 households, conducted between June 9th
and 15th, dealt with Kennedy's qualifications for the Presidency : "Do you tend
to agree or disagree that Sen. Edward Kennedy has the personality and leader-
ship qualities a President should have?"
4848
[In percenti
Agree
Disagree
Not sure
34
51
28
47
64
56
15
59
42
15
By education:
8th grade or less
55
37
* 17
16
College.. .-
By race:
White
23
30
13
14
Black .
67
18
By religion:
Protestant
Catholic
26
43
15
15
The clear-cut pockets of Kennedy strength are among the blacks, the least-well
educated and Catholics. But this basic support adds up to a minority of today's
electorate.
Most significant are persons with a college education who now heavily jxtpulate
the fast-growing suburbs and are highly independent in their voting habits.
Without substantial backing among this affluent group, it is unlikely that any man
can get elected President in the 1970's. It is the judgment of this swing group
that Senator Kennedy is "not ready" for a run for the White House, partly at
least because of the incident at Chappaquiddick.
4849
3 O
^:§
if J w
G 0
/. c
^, 0
C fj
K c
•< »•.
/.
W
CO
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 31
4850
Exhibit No. 244-18
Partial list of recipients of fraudulent mailing.
Congressmen: •
Sob Casey
Otis Pike
Wm. Roy
John Konagan
Leonor Sullivan.'
Gus Yatron ■
Rich Preyer
Don Fraser
Bob Bergland ' '
Ed Roybal
Peter Kyros
Clem Zablockl
Lou iNedzl
Nick Galiflanakis
Rich Hanna ■
Joe Karth
Ken Gray
Oan Rostenkowski
Bob Eckhardt
Fred Rponey
Jack Bingham
Hugh Carey
Lionel Van Deerlin
Bernle Sisk
Paul Sarbanes
George Daniel son
Gus Hawkins
Roy Taylor
Charlie VJilson
Jerry Waldia
Henry Reuss •
Sam Gibbons
Ko Udall
Jim Scheuer
John Konagan
Bob Leggett
David Obey
Joe Karth
Dante Fas cell
John Slack
Mollohan
John Kluczynskl
Andy Jacobs
George Shipley.
Bill Hathaw'ay
Joe Abbott
O
NO
>^'
SENATORS:
Humphrey
Chiles
Harris
Stennis
Cranston
Cannon
Moss
Sayh
Bantsen
Stevenson
Bible
Hoi lings
I KcClellan
Sparkman
Randolph
Proxir.ire
A'\ ■ ■ \
Gambrell
Eagleton
Hughes •
Kike Gravel
Xclntyra
Xondale
Nelson
Bob Byrd
Frank Church
Ribicoff
Symington
Lse Ketcalf
\
4851
'■ ' •■'.,'.,•.■ . ■ • ,■'■;' m'"' ■: 'I '•::':
v;r;'...,>vwL 6W4u^w.< -iN,i>-w.A^ ^-i'^^ j''.'.a,
4852
ExmBIT No. 244-19
'^Cniicb ^lctie& ^crxaU
WASHINGTON. D.C. lOIIO
July 29, 1971
Dear :
During the last couple of days you may have received a
fraudulent mailing in an envelope bearing my name. The mailing
consisted of a copy of a clipping which appeared in the New
York Post of July 15, concerning Senator Edward Kennedy.
I have spoken to Senator Kennedy and assured him that no
such mailing was ever authorized by me or by any member of my
Senate or campaign staff. It is a reprehensible tactic obviously
designed to embarrass both Senator Kennedy and me.
I think you know me well enough to know that such a tactic
as this would never be permitted in any organization associated
with me. I an enclosing a press release which I issued after I
was apprised of this mailing by members of Congress who received
it. You will also be interested to know that I have asked
Postmaster General Blount to investigate the origins of the
mailing. I am enclosing a copy of my letter to the Postmaster
General which details some of the characteristics of this mailing
which clearly denote it as a fraud.
I know you share my hope that such regrettable incidents
as this will not characterize the coming campaign.
Sincerely,
Edmund S. Muskie
United States Senator
Enclosure
4853
Exhibit No. 244-20
- COPY -
July 29, 1971
The Honorable Winton M. Blount
Postmaster General
U. S. Postal Service
Twelfth and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20260
Dear Mr. Postmaster General:
I am writing to request whatever assistance you can lend
regarding a mailing to many members of the House and Senate which
fraudulently bore my name.
Judging from the postmark on the envelopes given me by
some of the members of Congress who received the fraudulent letter,
the mailing was conducted on July 28. The envelopes used in the
mailing were apparently copied from envelopes in use by my office.
But the fraudulent envelopes are of a different color and bear a
different kind of stamp from that in use by my office. The address
labels on the envelopes are also of a different color than those
used by my office, I have already forwarded samples of these
envelopes separately to you for your examination.
Obviously this mailing represents an attempt to embarrass
Senator Kennedy and me. Worse, of course, this fraud represents
a despicable imposition on the judgment of those who received it
and a fraudulent use of my name.
I ask whatever assistance you can render in determining the
source of this mailing and in determining whether a violation of
federal law is involved.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Edmund S. Muskie
United States Senator
4854
o i v^
a '/ ■ .'If
* * jlr w w* *
THE POSTMASTER Gu.\cRAL'
Wushtngtori, DC 20260
,Au^usi; 2, •1971;'''r:;'.;,;\,i. •;
D&&V Senator 2vluskie:
i.This will acknowledge your letter of July 29, ' '.;
■, concerxiing a i-r*ailing to rn.any nicrAoera of Congreaa';
■;. which fraudulently bore your narAe.
.';.!I want to assure you that we are looking into tl^e'
'' 'rnatter, and a report will be sc^t to you as soon as '
■^ it is , available, . ■ ".\/'\.\;,r-^.'. ■'}:'■■'' :-':i-r ■■■ 'J\ .v. ..•>•.. ';.
^.''^yith kindest regards, ■■•^^{ ;/!'■;;' ''"';'-'''''':';■,.■.■
•1 ;.;.■' '■^■';:,::^,'' ■' ■ " ■'.■;'■' .Sincerely, '■'■.
Winton M.. Blount :.
4
: Honorable Edniund S, Muskie
'•' XJnitod States Senate.
■■Washington, D, C. '20510. ■."'
4855
OFFICE OF THE
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE POSTMASTER GENERAL
Washington, DC 20260
August 23, 1971
Dear Senator Muskie :
This is in further response to your letter of
July 29 concerning a mailing to many members of
Congress which fraudulently bore your name.
This entire matter is presently under investigation
by the Postal Inspection Service. As pertinent
information becomes available I will gladly keep you
informed as well as supply a final and complete report
at the conclusion of the investigation.
With kind regards.
Sincerely,
David L. Cantor
Congressional Liaison Officer
Honorable Edmund S. Muskie
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20519
4856
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
POSTAL INSPECTOR
Special Investigations Division
Washington, DC 20260
October 4, 1971
Mr. Michael Shinay
Office of Congressional Liaison
U. S. Postal Service
Washington, DC 20260
Dear Mr. Shinay:
This will confirm our telephone conversation on September 28, 1971,
concerning unauthorized mailings of reprints of a newspaper article
critical of Senator Edward Kennedy using the return address of
Senator Edmund S, Muskie.
Envelopes and enclosures, recovered from Senator Muskie' s office,
were submitted to our Crime Laboratory for processing by the Ninhydrin
method in an effort to develop latent fingerprints. Enclosures con-
tained in two envelopes which were undeliverable to the addressees and
were returned to Senator Muskie were completely void of fingerprints.
Numerous fingerprints and palm prints were developed on the enclosures
received by other Senators and Congressmen, which would indicate that
the prints did not belong to the person or persons responsible for
preparing the mailings.
The investigation was coordinated for Mr. Floyd M. Bering, who was
employed by Senator Muskie 's office. No suspects were developed, and
that a postal violation was not involved, further attention to this
case is not considered warranted. If additional information or inves-
tigation is desired, please advise. The envelopes and enclosures are
being retained in my files.
Sincerely,
D, L. Hunter
Postal Inspector
A TRUE COPY
4857
"^iTMsti ^icAc^ ^onaic
WASHINGTON. O.C. aOSIO
November 23, 1971
Mr. J. A. Matukonis
Congressional Liaison Officer
United States Postal Service
Washington, D.C. 20260
Dear Mr. Matukonis:
I appreciate the help you provided us with regard to the
fraudulent mailing and share your regret that you were not able to
identify the perpetrators of this action.
I would, however, appreciate your return as soon as possible
of the envelopes and other materials submitted to you by this office.
Please return them to my Administrative Assistant, John McEvoy, 115 Old
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
With warm best wishes, I am
4858
Exhibit No. 244-24
September 28, 1971
4:00 p.m.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
From now on, we want to have at least one Muskic sign in among demonstrators
who are demonstrating against the President. It should be MUSKIE FOR PRESIDENT
in big letters and should be held in a location so that it is clearly visible.
At Muskie events or events by other Democratic hopefuls, there should be a sign
or two which goads ihem. For example, at a Muskie rally there should be a Icr^ie
WHY NOT A BLACK VICE PRESIDENT or perhaps WE PREFER HUMPHREY or
something else that would goad him along.
.\t Humphrey rallies there should be Muskie signs and at Kennedy rallies , there
should be .Muskie or Humphrey signs and so on. Tliese signs should be well-placed
in relationship to the press area so that a picture is easy to get. .
4859
Exhibit No. 244-26
Me4Ha
oLeile^ Lf. eJjunn
^_a^ 19 7 >
4860
|||iKt7lB72
"It Is time for a change. We must restore
trust and confidence in our government."
— EDMUND S. MUSKIE, March 9, 1972
But twice that very week of March 9th, Muskie
shattered his Image of "trust and confidence."
Quite deliberately he refused to tell the truth
about his money sources and financial disclosure.
Twice — he lied on national network television.
TWO weeks before March 9th, in front of a Florida
audience (and the national press) , Muskie told a
whopping lie about his Vietnam voting record.
For the past ten years, Muskie has been regarded
as the epitome of "trust and confidence" but a
close examination of his record gives reason to doubt.
Muskie is the man who advocates the "Politics of Trust"
and the "Politics of Candor." The full story of his frequent
deceit and fraud is documented on the pages Inside this report.
Why doesn't AlusKcC
t^LL th& truth^
"I expect to be held accountable...." / MUSKIE ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
— Edmund S. Muskie, 1/5/72 I Room 4200, 515 Madison Ave, NYC
/v
QfP' PLca-se. copy J )(e,roK^ be.r,J^ S-CocpLt^^ ot f77uziio.C€.
• th.^ daco^^^r- and/or- ^^nd CV Zo yo<j>. ^r-.e^^s-
wA. ^-/>^a.r/wl.,^,e- a/,^ a.sJt your U.c.c
f^CutspcL^e^ to €.Va.LuaT<L Lx:. R^J.^ ^-n/
Too,
4861
TT e.X/'e.ct: tro />e_ nc-lci o-ccoonva. h L€l.
4862
c
o F i_ o n-te n trs
Dedication: "I expect to be held accountable" 1
Muskie lies about his Vietnam voting record 3
Muskie "prefers debates" but refuses to debate 4
Muskie 's ancestry: Draft dodgers 1 5
Muskie , the pious polluter 6
Muskie the legislator ? I 8
Honest Ed — the advocate of trust and confidence 9
Muskie ' s bad temper 10
Muskie characteristics 11
Muskie "favors reform" but doesn't act on it 12
Famous Muskie quotes 13
The most tangled web of lies:
— Why Ed Muskie said "I'd be out of the race." 14
Documentation confirming the lies 15
A. The 1970 Senate Money 15
B. "Strictly a Maine Operation" 16
C. MEC-70 had been a Presidential Committee: 16
D . Reaction to the Muskie Lies 16
E . Who Muzzled Muskie in 1971? 17
F-G. He Agrees to Disclose, But a Bit Too Late 18
H. Even Then, Only a Partial Disclosure! 19
I . Suspicious Muskie Money 20
J . I Would Be Out Of The Race 21
K. A Free Master's Degree in Political Science 21
L. Muskie Gets Angry, Evasive, Irrational 23
M. Not One of the Real Issues? 23
Political candidates, during their campaigns,
typically put their best foot forward. Sometimes
they stick their foot in their mouth — unintentionally.
But they never expose their warts deliberately. And
they never talk about the lies they've been telling
the public.
The frontrunner, Ed Muskie, has based his campaign
largely on the "Politics of Trust" and the "Politics
of Candor." And he has asked to be held accounteible
for his mistcikes. The MUSKIE ACCOLFNTABILITY PROJECT,
therefore, has been sponsored as a public service to
the nation's voters by the Sixtus Corporation,
Stewcirt Mott, President, 515 Madison Ave., NYC 10022.
4863
US k L e Li &.S CL.i>
O LCc:
fi i-S Vie^x. nam Vorln^ r^<^oi^d.
On February 19th, during his whistle-stop train tour of Florida, in
West Palm Beach before an audience of Florida voters and the national
press, Muskie made the following claim;
During the past two years, Muskie said he was a changed man
who "voted for every proposition to end this \iax and tie this
President ' s hands in pursuing and escalating this war. "
But on October 5, 1971, just \h months prior to this claim, Muskie
rose on the floor of the U.S. Senate to record himself against an end
to the bombing in Indochina.
The issue was very simple and clear. Senator Gravel's amendment #433
called for an unconditional halt to the bombing in Laos, Cambodia, and
North Vietnaun. And it called for a halt to the bombing in South Vietnam
except as the President deemed necessiury to protect the safety of our
withdrawing troops.
Senators Stennis and Thurmond led the debate in opposition to Gravel's
amendment. Muskie voted with them. So too did Hunphrey and Jackson.
In the six aonths that have passed since Sen. Muskie voted, in effect,
for a continuation of the bombing, the air war has been stepped up by
President Nixon — hundreds of thousands of bomb tonnage hevmbeen dropped,
countless thousemds of Indochinese and Americans have been killed, and
millions of Indochinese acreage have been sceurred beyond recognition.
Senator Muskie gives fine speeches proclaiming his opposition to the
war, but when it comes to voting in the Senate, he's not very consistent
with his rhetoric.
And when he gives speeches on the campaign trail, seeking the Presidency,
seeking our votes , seeking our trust and confidence , he lies to us eU)out
his Senate voting record.
4864
In July 1971, Senator Muskie made a speech to a group of Congressional
interns and said that debates among Democrats in the primeuries "would
be my preference to spot advertising."
But, as reported in the New York Times on Feb. 19, 1972;
Senator Muskie is spending the m2tximum on spot advertising in the
New Hampshire primary allowed by the agreement among the Democratic
ccmdidates, but he has avoided a debate with Mr. McGovern. He has
said he would debate only if all the Democratic hopefuls, not just
those running in a given state, were to teike part. That position
mckkes a debate almost impossible to arrange.
Finally, of course, Muskie did agree to a New Hampshire "debate" but
only after prolonged protest and embarrassment. And finally he agreed
to do it even though only his other four New Hampshire contestants were
present. (He would have liked 15 people on stage instead of five?)
And his staff who negotiated the 2u:rangements insisted that the format
allow no cross-questioning between candidates, only set speeches.
Subsequently Muskie refused to debate his rival candidates in Florida.
And again he refused to debate McGovern or McCarthy in Illinois.
But this is the meui who "prefers debates"?
On March 3, 1971, Muskie said:
I think the presidential debates of 1960 C2une closest to generating
widespread public interest, but that may be because it was the presi-
dential office that was at statke.
That same day, responding to a remark that "the people listening don't
get much out of it," Muskie said:
This is especially true with Senators who have been euround a while,
because they have developed a skill to evade an issue or avoid con-
frontation or to run around a point.
*****
In that same testimony March 3, 1971, Muskie said: "As long as millions are
spent to sweep men into office on a wave of superficial advertising more
appropriate to soap or cereal than national politics, the integrity of demo-
cratic practice auid our faith in that practice will continue to diminish."
He also said: "Even the best spot is a distortion of some sort. It may be a
good one, but it is a distortion of some sort."
And this is the masv who is "soendino the maxlminn nn orvo*- advertising."
4865
®
f^US-Jc/c's anc^srrj
Fifteen yeasbefore Ed Muskie was born (on March 28, 1914), his
father, named Stephen McU-ciszewski, emigrated from Poland.
At the time, seventeen was the age of conscription into the czarist
armies, and few Poles were anxious to serve in the army of their
oppressor .
Ed Muskie 's grandfather was determined that Stephen Marciszewski
should leave Poland before he was drafted. When he reached 17,
Meurciszewski left for Engljuid and lived there three years, then
moved on to the U.S., changed his name to Muskie, and fifteen
yeaurs later sired young Ed.
• * * •
One wonders why, with such a distinguished ancestry, Ed Muskie
finds it so hard to come to terms with U.S. draft dodgers and
the whole question of amnesty:
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 32
4866
®
US'/f'i-^-. the. p L o LLS f> oLLuLx: t. h
Although Ed Muskie claims to be the leading environmentalist In the Senate,
a close look at his record indicates that those self-righteous claims are not
altogether true.
Muskie grew up in the town of Rumford, Maine, where the Oxford Paper Compemy
(Rumford's principal employer) has long been the chief polluter of the odlferous,
befouled Androscoggin River. The rank fumes and foul water were facts of life
which Muskie grew up with. PresumeU^ly he came to accept it as a necessary evil.
Rumford residents, knowing that the mill was the source of their livelihood, would
sniff the odor and say, "That's the smell of money."
Forty years later, Muskie smelled money again. He became friendly with a fellow
named Freddie Vahlsing, a millionaire promoter-dreamer. Vtihlslng was one of the
fat-cats who helped Muskie get elected to the Senate in 1964. Mr. Vahlsing used
to give Muskie free rides in his corporate plane. Mr. Vahlsing, through his
sugiu: beet suid potato processing enterprises, became — WITH ED MUSKIE 'S HELP —
one of the most notorious polluters in the State of Maine during the 1960 's.
The story of Muskie and his whealer-d««l«r friend Vahlsing is long, complicated,
amusing, sad, and incredibly venal. A full report of it can be found in an article
by Frank Graham, Jr. in The American Heritage magazine or in the Llppman-Hansen
book entitled Muskie . But the sordid, simple chronology of it describes the
pollution of a river — and the pollution of Muskie 's integrity.
1960 The Prestile river in Maine has a "B" classification, suitable for propagation
of fish euid, after treatment, for use as drinking water. Firat-clasa for trout.
1960 Vahlsing applies for a license to discharge his potato-processing wastes.
1961 Vahlsing opens his potato-processing plant. and starts polluting the Prestile.
1962 Muskie meets Vahlsina.
1962 Fish begin to die in alarming numbers. Children warned not to swim in Prestile.
1962 Vahlsing seeks federal help to expand his plant. During the next three yeeurs
Muskie and his staff assisted him. "We gave him all the help w* could."
1962 to 1965 Vahlsing receives 31 violations for degrading the "B" classification.
1962 to 1964 Vahlsing installs a waste-treatment plant, which has never functioned
properly .
1963 Muskie seeks 33,000 acre sugar-beet allotment for Maine from Dept. of Agricul-
ture.
1964 Vahlsing has enlarged potato plant several times, federal help thru Muskie.
1964 Muskie is up for re-election. Receives donations from VeJilaing.
1965 Vahlsing wins contract to build $14,500,000 sugar beet refinery. Raceives help
from Muskie to get a $6,000,000 federal "Area Redevelopnent Administration"
loan PLUS $8,000,000 in private loans backed by the State of Maine, leaving
only $500,000 for Vahlsing to put up in private capital.
1965 The pollution on the Prestile has become so Isad that the State of Maine issues
a cease-and-desist order to Vahlsing 'a potato plant. As a solution, to circum-
vent the State order, the Maine legislature downgraded the Prestile to a "D"
classification — with the help of Edmund Muakie. Muakie came forward to marahall
the Democratic votes in the Legislature, publicly supporting the down-grading,
making it clear that he stood with Vahlsing »nd hia Prestile pollution. The
Prastjlp .had thus been officially confirmed as an open sewer.
4867
, (2>
1967 Vahlsing's sugar-beet refinery opens; it's pollution-free. But the potato
plemt continues to pollute. More fish are killed and the odor nezirly drives
nearby residents from their homes. That winter, the ice was black.
1968 The stench gets so bad that Prestile neighbors across the Canadian border are
ready to wage war. "We threw some trout into the river and they lived less
than a minute .... even the eels in the stream had their eyes turn white and
dissolve." In self-defense, the Canadians erected a one-thousand square-foot
dam across the Prestile to prevent the stench from befouling their shores.
1968 Muskie runs for Vice-President . Vahlsing contributes to his campaign.
1969 The sweet allure of sugar beets turns sour. There aren't enough sugar beets
grown to make the refinery profitable. Vahlsing's loan payments are in default.
1970 Vzihl^ing owes millions in debt and cem't pay. He can't even pay the Midne
farmers for their sugau: beets. He can't pay local township taxes. The State
of Maine has to intervene and, because of the loan guartmtee, shells out monthly
payments of $50,000 to Veihlsing's creditors.
1970 The State of Maine upgrades the Prestile classification to "C" but allows a
grace period until 1976 to achieve that standard.
Oh, by the way, according to Bill Caldwell in the Maine Sunday Telegram, the
lawyer for Mr. Vahlsing is none other than George Mitchell, Democratic National
Committeeman from Maine and currently one of Muskie 's campaign managers.
Such, in brief, is the Tale of the Prestile, its pollution, and the Smell of
Muskie 's Money.
• • • • *
Ralph Nader and his "Task Force Report on Air Pollution" h»e had some striking
observations to make about Muskie 's environmental record. For example:
Senator Muskie has never seemed inclined (either politically or tesiperament-
ally) towjurd taking a tough stand against private industry.
On balance, Muskie has failed the nation in the field of air pollution
control legislation.
His leadership has wavered significantly over the last several years and
any renewed interest in exerting that leadership was due only to his fear
that the President might steal the Senator's thunder on a good political issue.
Perhaps the Senator should consider resigning his chairmanship of the
SubcoBmittee (on Air and Water Pollution) and leave the post to sctneone
who ceui devote more time and energy to the task.
*****
Is this Mr. Clean, the leader of the environment crusade?
Is this the man who says "We're very careful about the contributions we
receive.... we avoid conflict of interest problems"?
4868
POLL TAX — he voted in favor of it in 1962.
SEGREGATION — in 1963 he voted in favor of continuing federal funds for
segregated hospitals and medical schools.
CRIMINALS — in 1968 he voted to disqualify from federal employment
anyone convicted of a felony in a riot.
WIRETAPS — he voted for continuing police authority to permit wiretaps
even before any crime is committed.
SHOTGUNS — he voted against Sen. Edward Kennedy's effort to prohibit
interstate shipment of rifles ^uld shotguns.
BOMBS — he voted against Sen . Edward Brooke ' s eunendment to prohibit the
sale of bombs, hand grenades, and the like to unauthorized persons.
VIETNAM — During the middle and late 60's, Muskie probably knew more about
Vietn^un than any other foreign-policy issue. He had already made more of a
record of involvement with Vietnam them most of his Senate colleagues.
In 1965 he went to Vietnam on behalf of L.B.J, on a fact-finding mission. \
In 1967 he was an official observer at the South Vietnamese elections.
In 1968 he testified before Che Democratic Party's platform coninittee on Vietnam.
In 1968 he was the lead-off speaker in favor of the majority plank at the convention.
On the Senate floor he had argued about Vietnam issues, and had voted on bills,
iunendments, and resolutions related to the war.
Yet in August, 1969, Steweurt Alsop made the observation on "Meet the Press" that
"Senator, I find it a little difficult to understand precisely where you stand on
the over-riding issue of Vietnam."
Alsop was not alone. Virtually no one, including Muskie, knew quite where Muskie
stood on the Vietnam war.
And as recently as February 1972, Muskie was telling the editors of the Washington
Post: "Wb must urge the government in Saigon to move toward a political accomoda-
tion with all the elements of their society." And then: "And for us to try to
impose a political settlement, I think, does violence to what we think our continued
involvement ought to be . "
Huh? What does Muskie meem? What's the difference between "we must urge" and the
notion that we must not "impose"? In our relationship with the Saigon regime, when
we merely "urge" something, it is most often categorically ignored. The only way
we have succeeded in changing Saigon's policies is through "imposition." Little
wonder that the American public is still confused bv Ed Muskie's rhetoric. That's
probably because he, too, is confused.
4869
! (2)
rIonts'C ^fi -~ (xA\/oc^irre^ OF Trust:
In 1964, Muskie voted against a Morse-Clark amendment to require full
annual disclosure of all assets, source of gifts, income and contributions
by Members of Congress, Federal officials, and military officers.
In 1964, as a precondition to a pay increase for Members of Congress, Muskie
voted against a disclosure requirement seeking information on all financial
interests in excess of $10,000 and sources of income in excess of $500.
In 1964, Muskie voted against a resolution requiring disclosure by Members,
officers and employees of Congress receiving salaries in excess of $10,000,
of all assets in excess of $5000, associations with professional firms,
employment and financial condition of spouse, and prohibiting joint ventures with
lobbyists and acceptance of gifts in excess of SlOO in- value.
In 1967, Muskie voted against a Clark amendment requiring Senate members and
employees earning in excess of $10,000 to file a financial statement with the
Secretary of the Senate.
In 1968, Muskie voted against a Cannon amendment to extend disclosure to candi-
dates as well as incumbents.
With this as a back-drop, we may proceed to an understanding of Muskie 's votes
and behaviour in connection with specific questions of congressional ethics.
Like the time Muskie voted against an investigation of the infamous Bobby BcOcer,
who beceune so rich and notorious during his years of friendship with L.B.J.
In 1964 and 196B, though he was accepting welcome campaign contributions from his
pal Freddie Vahlslng in Maine, Muskie gladly helped Veihlsing continue with his
notorious pollution of the Prestile River and he willingly helped VeJilsing obtain
$14,000,000 in government'sponsored loans. The company want broke, couldn't repay.
*****
And in the most obvious case of all, Muskie claims virtue and Ignorance. That's
the case of John P. Jabar, Muskie 's field representative in Maine, who received
$10,000 per yeiu: from Muskie 's federal office allowances, while at the seune time
wheeling and dealing in the nursing home business. On the sly, Jeibar had become
president of two corporations. One of them obtained a $415,000 loan from the FHA,
and the other received a $345,000 loan fron the Small Business Administration.
When it became public knowledge that Jabar was cashing in on Muskie 's connections,
Muskie, of course, denied any knowledge of it. But the fact is that the FHA in
Maine was headed by Dick McMahon, Muskie 's close friend and former campaign manager.
And the fact is that the Maine SBA was headed by Maurice Williams, Muskie 's adminis-
trative assistant when he was governor. And Jiibar's associate in these nursing home
deals was the brother of George Mitchell, then chairman of the Democratic State
Committee, Vahlslng 's lawyer, and One of Muskie 's current ceunpaign managers. But
Muskie denied any knowledge of Jabar 's shenanigans.
When the glare of publicity uncovered this neat arrangement for Jabar, in 1968,
Muskie was then interested in presidential politics; Jabar got rid of the nursing
homes and quietly left Muskie 's staff. All nicely hushed up.
4870
<3
I I U^^ie,'s ha,d ttm^^r
Muskie's biographers, Theo Lippnan and Donald C. Hansen, who wrote a
remarkjUjly favoraJale analysis of the Senator's career (entitled Muskie,
published in 1971 by W. W. Norton, $6.95), assembled nonetheless a very
devastating portrait of Muskie's bad temper, as seen in the quotes below.
But first, for contrast, let's look at the Muskie rhetoric in his 1968
Vice-Presidential campaign speech:
To maJce a society such as ours work is not easy. It means learning
to live with, to understand and to respect many different kinds of
human beings... of different social backgrounds, personalities and
dispositions, and to accept them all as equals. It means learning to
trust each other, to work with each other, to think of each other as
neighbors.
THE YOUNG MUSKIE — Lippman-Hansen review his youth:
At home Muskie displayed none of the shyness he showed in public. "He
was never shy around the house," says Irene (his older sister). "Mostly
it was his terrible temper." The children played casino, whist, and
rummy, and "Ed just couldn't beetr to lose a game. If he lost, he'd throw
the cards, yell, and stamp off. He just hated to lose." Once, when Irene
had been teasing him for losing, Muskie became so enraged that he chased her
into the pantry, and Irene screamed in fear that he was going to hit her. He
has never completely conquered either his shyness or his temper; he remains
essentially a private person for all his public successes, and has a temper
that can approach the volcanic. As governor, he once hurled a heavy book,
at an aide during a heated discussion, missing only narrowly.
AS VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNER
He would fume at advance men and aides who established schedules he was in-
capable of meeting. "Who are these faceless bastards that are responsible
for this schedule?"
It doesn't take much to offend Muskie. .. .His anger, whether uncontrolled or
summoned, rises to the surface; his eyes blaze, his forefinger waggles, his
great head sheOces, and his jowls quiver, as he decries an opponent's unwar-
ranted attack.
MUSKIE THE LEGISLATOR — Ralph Nader had criticized Muskie for watering down axi
anti -pollution bill. A reporter asked him what he thought of Nader's charges.
Muskie turned on the reporter, his eyes blazing with anger, his lips and
hands literally trembling. Obviously attempting to hold his emotions in
check, he replied in a strained voice that he hoped his record would stand
up against such charges. Muskie staff secreteiries who watched the encounter
whispered to one another that they had never seen him so angry.
HIS SISTER'S SUMMARY
His older sister, Irene, is frankly of two minds when she considers the poss-
ibility that Ed might become president. "I just don't know whether he'd be
able to take all the criticism that a president gets. He's so sensitive
to criticism."
I
4871
®
INDECISION — from the Lippman-Hansen book entitled Muskie:
Another aspect of Muskie 's personality that began to emerge was his slowness
to reach a decision — some call it procrastination — his willingness to explore
all facets of a problem, his tendency to recite alternatives without committing
himself publicly to einy one of them. This trait is both a strength and a weak-
ness....That same quality, however, may be a distinct handicap in a presidential
aspirant.
He often waited until after the debate on a particular point had left the
center ring before making up his mind. Muskie "appears determined to be the
last man to commit himself to any point of view," Washington Post columnist
David Broder wrote in June, 1969.
LEADERSHIP — As recorded on "Meet the Press" in an interview with Stewart Alsop;
Alsop: "I have talked to a good many of your Democratic colleagues, and they all
seem to have only one major criticism of you as a potential presidential candi-
date. That is that you haven't broken your lance in any really major cause,
that you haven't been actually out front and center on the really controversial
issues, ffhat is your comment on that criticism?"
Muskie replied: "It might be one I would make myself."
KNOWLEDGE OF ISSUES — as reported in the Washington Monthly of May, 1971:
A staff aide had written a briefing memo on the defoliation and indiscriminate
bombing in Vietnam. Muskie reacted: "Is this accurate? Do you mean to say this
has been going on?"
On a campaign trip to California in 1968, Muskie 's aides were surprised to learn
the Senator didn't know about Cesar Chavez's grape strike. "Grape strike?
You've got to be kidding" Muskie told his startled briefers.
CHOICE OF STAFF — from Lippman-Hansen:
The staff which Muskie interposes between himself and others is by senatorial
standards only passable; as that of a major United States public official seeking
the presidency it has been described as inadequate. Ralph Nader, during his
curious battle with Muskie, termed the staff "amateur," an evaluation he said
was shared by Washington political observers.
FRUGALITY — Lippman-Hansen have described him as "basically a man of simple personal
wants and he remains frugal." Well, things are getting better for Ed Muskie.
He manages to get along on his Senate salaury of $42,500 PLUS his 1969 earnings of
$80,183.25 in speaking and writing fees, and in 1970 he was due to get a guaran-
tee of about $90,000 for a series of ghostwritten books. Ed Muskie's definition
of frugality includes an $82,000 home neeur Washington, a $35,000 beach cottage
in Maine, and two Chryslers.
ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY — Muskie speaks:
We're so busy in our office that only the unimportant things surface. Every
damned day I leave the house with something specific I want to do when I get to
work. And twenty-nine times out of thirty, I never get to do my own thing; I'm
always doing somebody else's.
4872
®
M
h uv do e.s n 'r' ^c-z: en ^'^
On numerous occasions — and as recently as last month — Sen. Muskie
has claimed that he is in favor of the new paurty reforms.
A long catalogue of examples could be brought forth to document how
the Muskie campaign has violated both the letter and the spirit of
the new guidelines for delegate selection. But one crystal clear
example serves to illustrate this point.
Every slate of delegates is supposed to be composed of fair repre-
sentation of women, blacks and youth — in proportion to their presence
in the population. But in Illinois, Muskie's slate of 113 delegates
to-be-elected contained only 23% women.
As if men out-numbered women in Illinois by a ratio of 3:1!!!
Utter nonsense.
Muskie's people apologized for this obvious imbalance and explained
that a candidate "had little control over who filed in his name."
But nonetheless, on Mzurch 9, 1972, Ed Muskie wrote a letter to the
people of Illinois, signing it personally, in which he enclosed a list
of the 113 prospective delegates (only 23% of which were women) , emd he
^* ■ I HAVE PERSONALLY ENDORSED (these) 113 CANDIDATES.
*****
Actually those 113 candidates were all competing for a total of only
108 delegate seats, so it's obvious that Muskie could have reserved his
endorsement for only the 108 who could possibly get elected. Or he could
have abstained from an overt endorsement altogether.
But this mem who claims he's in favor of party reform, why does he actively
work to deny women their equal rights?
4873
Famous I^oSK\e^ auozr^s
I CAN FtJDGE ON THE ISSUES AS WELL AS ANYBODY ELSE.
I'VE BEEN IN POLITICS A LONG TIME.
— Did Muskie really say that?
I'VE MADE MISTAKES. I'VE HAD REASON TO CHANGE MY MIND AND I EXPECT TO
BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE NOT ONLY FOR THE THINGS THAT I'VE DONE RIGHT,
BUT ALSO FOR THE MISTAKES THAT I ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE.
— press conference, 1/5/72
I DON'T URGE PEOPLE TO TRUST ME. ...
I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT AS A MAN I'M MORE TRUSTWORTHY THAN OTHER MEN.
— interview with Washington Post, Feb. 1972
a comment about Muskie:
YOU CAN STRADDLE ONLY SO LONG BEFORE YOU GET A HERNIA.
— quote in Wall Street Journal 3/3/72
Jack English, whose candidate (Muskie) acknowledges receiving free rides
in Freddie Veihlsing's airplane:
McGOVERN HAS BEEN RECEIVING FREE RIDES IN STEWART MOTT'S PRIVATE PLANE.
— remark to the press on 3/6/72
— Note: Mott owns a bicycle and battered VW, no planes.
Jane Muskie:
I'M NOT AN INDEPENDENT SOUL.. ^. I AM A LIBERATED WOMAN
I DON'T WANT TO PUT MY FOOT IN ED'S MOUTH. . J*Y HUSBAND'S CAREER HAS GIVEN ME A CAREER.
— interview in Time magazine, 3/6/72
asked if he would abide by the spirit of the can^aign finance disclosure law:
YOU WOULDN'T WANT ME TO BREAK THE LAW, WOULD YOU?
— interview in Tan^ja Tribune, 2/29/72
asked why he wouldn't disclose the source of his campaign money:
IF I_ DID THAT, I'D BE OUT OF THE RACE. THAT'S THE SIMPLE FACT.
— interview on 1/17/72
looking pale amd haggard, one week after the N.H. primary:
I THOUGHT I OUGHT TO CAMPAIGN IN NEW HAMPSHIRE TO LEARN HOW TO GO DOWNHILL GRACEFULLY,
—in Florida, 3/14/72
referring to abortions and why the law shouldn't be repealed:
THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME KIND OF RESTRAINT!
— in NYC on 3/23/71
referring to day-after chemicals which might be eOaortif aclents :
SOME WOMEN ABORT SPONTANEOUSLY WHEN HORSEBACK-RIDING. MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE MORE
RIDING STABLES. __,„ ^^ ^„ 3/33/,,
shouting through a bullhorn on the Univ of Illinois caaipus:
IT IS SAID THAT I'M SEEKING FORGIVENESS ON THE WAR.
I'M NOT SEEKING FORGIVENESS.
I MADE A MISTAKE AND I EXPECT To BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
I'VE SAID ON A HUNDRED CAMPUSES THAT I WAS WRONG IN 1968.
— reported in the Washington Post, 3/19/72
4874
7 /?e mosT -tzanjLe.cL uje.J) oF Idc^s
A. Repeatedly during 1970, Muskie and his 'staff asserted that his 1970 campaign
funds were for his 1970 re-election to the U.S. Senate.
B. Muskie's staff claims that the fund-raising is "strictly a Maine operation"
— then later tells the Clerk of the House of Representatives that it is a
"local committee" in the District of Columbia — yet it raises 97% of its
major gifts outside the State of Maine, and only 17% from D.C.
C. Now, in 1972, when it suits his convenience, Muskie claims that the 1970
money was for his Presidential race, and he repeats that claim on four
different occasions on national network television.
D. When confronted with his lies, Muskie fudges the issue and claims that the
1970 committee was for both the Senate and Presidential races — which is either
untrue or unethical.
E. Muskie proclaims his virtue in being the first to make a volunteury disclosure
of finances, and says he discontinued his disclosure policy because McGovern
and other candidates didn't follow suit. But the truth of it is that he was
muzzled by his fat-cat friends who told him to stop disclosing — or else.
F. Muskie claimed in 1972 that he wouldn't disclose his early donations unless all
current candidates. Republican and Democrat, plus all potential candidates
(including Pat Paulsen and Dick Gregory?) would disclose. Then, due to increased
pressure and embarrassment, he reversed himself and agreed to disclose.
G. But Ed Muskie deliberately arrcinged his disclosure to avoid the New Hampshire and
Florida amd Illinois primaries. Consequently, voters in those statej had no know-
ledge as to who was bankrolling Ed Muskie's campaign.
H. And when Ed Muskie makes his report in late March, it will be only a partial
report, not a complete report of his money sources.
I. It has been claimed that Muskie is receiving money from Republican defense con-
tractors. Also from I.T.T. board director Felix Rohatyn. — In 1970, certain
contributions were refunded because of potential embarrassment to the candidate.
Now, again in 1972, some Republican contributors may be asking for refunds rather
than have their names disclosed publicly.
J. On January 17, 1972, Muskie told reporter Richard Reeves that if he disclosed the
source of his ceunpaign money, he'd be "out of the race."
K. Reeves commented that if Muskie's books were opened to the public, "the country
would get a free master's degree in political science."
L. On virtually every single occasion when Ed Muskie has been questioned about his
■ ' Boney sources, he has become "angry" or "irked" or "testy" — according to press
reports. His financing is obviously a source of acute embarrassment to him.
M. On March 5, 1972, during a national network TV program, Muskie deliberately lied
about his campaign finances. And then, despite the national Inquiry into I.T.T.
financing of Nixon, Mitchell, Kleindienst and the Republican convention, and
despite his own crusade for "trust and confidence," Muskie continued his remarks
by saying, "Now, if I may turn to the real issues in this campaign.
4875
dp
A. THE 1970 SENATE MONEY. Despite what Muskie is saying now, every shred of
evidence on the record proves that the 1970 "Muskie Election Coiiinittee" was
solely a Senate re-election committee, zmd funds were supposedly raised for
that purpose only.
On 2/18/70 the first donations were received, $1500 from Milton Gwirtzman and
$5000 from the National Committee for An Effective Congress. The latter organiza-
tion gives only to congressional candidates; it never allows its money to be used
for presidential campaigns.
On 3/23/70 a donation of $4500 arrived from the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee,
which, like the NCEC above, gives only to Senate candidates, never for presidential.
Muskie and his staff director Berl Bernhard had been chairmem and director, respective-
ly, of the DSCC a couple of years prior to this. Both NCEC and DSCC are groups which
raise money from the public-at-large, from thousands of contributors both large and
small, and the donations cure then turned over to cimdidates for Congress only.
On 3/31/70, in an interview with Bob Walters of the Washington Star, Muskie's staff
insisted that the new committee was for "nothing more than a senatorial race."
On 4/13/70, the committee received $5000 from the AFL/CIO Committee on Political
Education, another group which presumably was giving solely to Muskie's Senate race.
On 4/29/70, the committee treasurer, Milton Semer, writes a belated thank-you letter
to NCEC saying that its "$5000 is a big help in assuring Senator Muskie's re-election
this yeeu: to the U.S. Senate from the State of Maine."
On 6/10/70, Milton Semer files the first report of the Muskie Election Committee (MEC)
saying in a cover letter to Pat Jennings, Clerk of the House of Representatives, that
the committee was formed to assist Muskie, who "is seeking re-election to the U.S.
Senate from Maine."
On 7/10/70, the MEC recorded another gift of $500 from the DSCC.
On 8/31/70, MEC accepted a $500 donation from publisher William Benton, a well-known
Humphrey supporter, who presumably thought he was giving to Muskie's Senate race.
On 9/28/70, MEC received a donation of $500 from a group called "Invest in Peace,"
a fund-raising activity sponsored by Another Mother for Peace. Dorothy Jon«s« a
co-chairmsm of the group, described the donors as "little people" — several thousand
of them — who saved a dollar here and there from their food budgets in order to back
congressional cemdidates who had voted against the ABM, MIRV, and Vietnam. They had
no intention of backing Muskie's presidential Interests.
On 10/13/70, MEC received a $2000 donation from the Garment Workers Union in NYC,
another labor group which probably intended the money to go for Muskie's Senate race.
On 10/30/70, MEC apparently closed out its books, or at least ceased to report any
further contributions, for there is no record at the Clerk of the House indicating
money received just prior to Election Day '70 or imy money received after Muskie's
successful re-election. The total funds raised between 2/18/70 and 10/30/70 amounted
to $175,263, a very small amount for emy state's Senate re-election expenses.
On 1/19/71, two months after his Senate re-election, Muskie told reporter Elizabeth
Drew that "I'm not a c2uididate, or an announced candidate .for any office." When Ms.
Drew persisted in questioning him, Muskie grew angry and repeated "I'm not a candidate
for anything."
In effect, every dime that MEC raised in 1970 was presumably for Muskie's 1970
Senate re-election. The record is eibundantly, convincingly cle^*-
4876
B. "STRICTLY A MAINE OPERATION." These are the words used by Milton Semer,
treasurer, in describing the committee to Washington Star reporter Bob Walters,
on 3/31/70. The facts, however, differ from the claims of Muskie's staff.
Out of $175,263 raised by the MEC, $161,000 (92%) came from 90 donors who
gave $500 or more. That's an average gift of about $1800. Among these ninety
donors, there were only three gifts from Muskie's home state of Maine, and the
three amounts total only a mere $11,000 out of the $161,000 total.
From other localities, Muskie raised vastly more money:
$27,000 from 15 donors in Washington, D.C.
$53,500 from 32 donors in New York City
$14,500 from 6 donors in Los Angeles
$24,500 from 17 donors in Massachusetts
$30,500 from 15 donors in 12 other states
The true domicile of the MEC must have been a total befuddlement to its treasurer,
Milton Semer, for only two months after he told the press that it was "strictly a
Maine operation," he attested to the Clerk of the House in his 6/10/70 letter that
MEC "has been formed in the District of Columbia. .. .is a local committee, not
affiliated with any national committee."
But on the date that Milton Semer wrote that letter, only 3 out of 27 major gifts
were from the District of Columbia, his own gift of $1000 being one of them.
C . NOW, IN 1972, MUSKIE CLAIMS THAT MEC-70 HAD BEEN A PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE '.
On four sepaurate occasions, each of them on national network television, Muskie has
been extolling his virtue as an advocate of disclosure fuid has claimed that his
NEC donations were really-and-truly donations to his Presidential campaign.
On 1/16/72, during a "Meet the Press" interview, Muskie said he had disclosed
his "national political" money in the 1970 report.
On 3/5/72, reading from a prepared statement on the N.H. television "debate,"
Muskie claimed: "I have disclosed the sources of contributions to my campaign
for the Presidency. I decided to file regular public reports with the Clerk
of the House of Representatives and I did so in 1970."
On 3/7/72, on the very morning of the N.H. primary, he told Frank McGee on NBC's
Today Show: "I have disclosed contributions .... and did through 1970."
On 3/14/72, on the morning of the Florida primjury, he told Barbara Walters, again
on the NBC Today Show: "I was the first candidate to disclose. .. .in 1970 when
no other candidate disclosed." Waiters: "But you were not a Presidential candi-
date then." Muskie: "Yes I was."
D. REACTION TO THE MUSKIE LIES. Immediately following the New Hampshire TV remarks,
file #163 at the Clerk of the House became one of the most actively scrutinized
documents in Washington. There was no evidence to support the claim that Muskie's
report represented a disclosure of his Presidential monies. Every scrap of evidence,
every detail, indicated that it was his Senate list emd only his Senate list.
Donors were isnediately contacted emd asked: "Did you intend your 1970 gift to go
toward Muskie's presidential campaign?" Russ Hemenway, Director of the National
4877
®
Conanittee for an Effective Congress, replied: "We do not participate in Presidential
elections . Our donors were certainly giving the money for Muskie ' s Senate race .
They may have had other preferences in the Presidential campaign."
Dorothy Jones, co-chairman of Another Mother for Peace, was asked about the $500
sent in through its fund-raising efforts. She said: "That's amazing. We meant that
money to go specifically for the Senate campaign. That's ridiculous. Those funds
were never intended for his presidential efforts. I'm going to write him a letter
right away."
Another donation, in the amount of 51000, had come from a fund-raising group called
"Campaign '70," an effort headed by Senators Frank Church and George McGovern, which
had raised money for a- number of liberal Senators who were up for re-election.
Although the amount had not been reported by the MEC, Campaign '70's coordinator
George Agree insists that the money was meant for the Senate bid only. It is not
likely that Sen. McGovern would have sanctioned Muskie 's use of the money for his
presidential purposes.
Clearly the Muskie people found themselves caught in a dilanma. On the one hand
they had told Senate contributors that their money was for the Senate; but now in
1972 the candidate himself was proclaiming that the 1970 report listed Presidential
monies. The Muskie solution: fudge on it.
Reporter Saul Friedman, writing for the Knight Newspapers, called Muskie 's Washington
office on March 9th and talked with spokesman Hadley Roff . "Many of the contributors
listed understood that their money was to be used for the Presidential as well as the
Senate campaign and that some expenditures would overlap," Roff said. He claimed
that contributions were "earmarked" for the Senate campaign only.
Hemenway of the NCEC was asked 2j}out this. He pointed out that there had been no
specific earmarking in the letter he received frqm the MEC. "Perhaps our contribu-
tion did go to the Senate race, but the problem is, how can you tell the dollstrs
apart when they get mixed?" he said. "Furthermore, that is very unethical. Not
illegal, but certainly improper."
In this tangled thicket of lies, evasions, and unethical behaviour, one wonders just
who Edmund Muskie and his friends have been lying to:
To his Senate donors? To Frank McGee?
To reporter Bob Walters? To the entire nation?
To the Clerk of the House? To Barbara Walters?
To reporter Elizabeth Drew? To Florida voters?
To New Heunpshire voters? To reporter Saul Friedman?
Suddenly we hear an echo of Muskie 's own speech on election eve 1970; his words
were: "That is- a lie. And the American people know it is a lie."
E. WHO MUZZLED MUSKIE IN 1971? For the past two months, Muskie had been claiming
that he had been the first, the only candidate to disclose his money sources. He
even claimed to Fremk McGee that he wanted to "set the standard for disclosure."
But then following October 1970, Muskie stopped disclosing. WHY?
Muskie would have us believe that he discontinued his disclosures because "other
candidates failed to follow my lead." Over and over he has claimed this. On the
N.H. television debate, twice on the Today Show, again in a press statement on 3/12/72.
But thank goodness the national news media began catching on to Muskie 's tactics imd
his obvious lies. On March 12th, Don Oberdorfer of the Washington Post wrote a
4878
(S)
column telling the truth of it. Opening the column with the remark that Muskie
"has painted himself into a corner on the issue of disclosure of his campaign
finances," Oberdorfer sets forth the real reason as to why Muskie was muzzled:
Within a month of this voluntary disclosure {October 1970) , Newsweek
magazine accurately reported that big shots from the motion picture
industry were among the senator's heaviest contributors. Columnist
Kevin Phillips, picking up the tale from there, listed the names of
the movie men — prominently including Arnold Picker and Arthur Krim
of United Artists — and charged that Muskie was receiving "financial
succor from celluloid sex."
Apparently the heat was too hot for Muskie and his movie pals; Oberdorfer
continues:
Neither the Newsweek article nor the Phillips column created much of a stir,
except among the moguls. In the plush setting of a post-election meeting
in Florida, with the movie magnates paying many of the bills, Jack Valenti
of the Motion Picture Association and others convinced Muskie to cease the
voluntary reports, arguing that they embarrass his contributors and would
retard his fund-raising. The Janueury 1971 campaign fund report — in final
stages of prepauration — was quietly shelved, and no more Muskie reports
were filed.
At last the truth was out: But perhaps neither Barbara Walters nor Ed Muskie
happened to read the Oberdorfer column, for just two days later, 3/14/72, on
the NBC Today Show, talking to a national audience, there he was again, perpetuating
the myth:
I suspended it (disclosure) because no other candidate followed.
Such utter nonsense. — And what a shame that Barbara Walters let him get away
with the bold lie, but perhaps she just didn't know the truth of the matter.
F-G. FINALLY HE AGREES TO DISCLOSE, BUT A BIT TOO LATE. Already, by March 12th,
MuBkie had painted himself into such a tight corner that he was about to go straight
up the wall. He had compounded his lies so frequently, and he had made himself look
so incredibly suspicious on this issue, that he had no choice but to agree to a full
disclosure.
But let's look at the background of his refusal to disclose. Over and over again he
had refused to disclose early this year. On 1/16/72 he claimed that he did not find
it possible to "write a new standard of conduct." — Even though he subsequently
claimed that he had been the first to disclose and had attempted to set a "new
standard for disclosure." — Huh?
On February 27th the Washington Post reported an interview with Ed Muskie on this
subject of disclosure:
I 'm willing to support any policy or any approach to the problem that includes
everyone who's a candidate or potential candidate for President, both Republicem
and Democrat.
In setting forth his position thus so clearly, it's obvious that he wanted a full
disclosure agreement that would include Edward Kennedy, Pat Paulsen, Dick Gregory,
and, without fail, Snoopy. It's no wonder that the Washington Post editorial staff
followed this reply with a question: does this mean that "you will be last man in?"
Muskie denied that charge, of course, but he made it cl«»ar i-h»t- h^ was in no hurry
4879
to live up to the pious words he had spoken on this subject just one year earlier,
when he testified before the Senate hearings on ccunpaign financing reform. Perhaps
one of the most famous quotes in Muskie's entire career was uttered on 3/3/71:
DISCLOSURE IS A GOOD THING.
Unfortunately, Muskie found it impossible to live up to principles he had espoused.
Apparently because the movie moguls had muzzled Muskie. Apparently because indeed
he had something to hide.
Perhaps Muskie felt the pressure so strongly that he had no choice. After all,
McGovern, Lindsay, McCloskey, and Humphrey had finally disclosed. To be sure,
Nixon, Paulsen, Gregory, Kennedy and Snoopy hadn't disclosed. But apparently
Muskie felt it would be, at last, politically expedient to do so. Maybe he had
read a Washington Post editorial on 3/12/72:
The actions of these four candidates ought to put enough public pressure on the
rest of them to smoke out aimilau: data. A serious candidate, particularly a
front-runner like Senator Muskie, can hardly afford to bring up the rear on
this issue. Failure to follow suit opens him, with some justification, to the
charge that he has something to hide. Whatever Senator Muskie's reluctance is
based upon — a fear the figures will show he has done poorly, or perhaps excep-
tionally well, in raising money or a desire to protect the privacy of some of
his donors — he has a special obligation as the supposed leader of the field to
come clean with the public.
It's clear that Muskie was feeling the heat. Three days before that, Humphrey,
of all persons, had agreed to a full disclosure. Two days before that, adver-
tisements appeared in most every ii^portant newspaper in Florida calling him on
this point, asking him to disclose. Also, two days before, Saul Friedman had
written a stinging column for the Knight newspaper, Miami Herald, raising the many
murky questions about that "Muskie Election Committee."
On Sunday, March 12th, the A. P. wire came through from Tampa meurked "Urgent."
Muskie agrees to disclose ! Suddenly it is the lead story on news broadcasts that
day. On Monday it is the headline on page # one in leading newspapers. Big deal!
But sadly, in this announcement, Muskie reiterated all the tired lies he had been
telling in previous weeks and months. He resorted to a claim that he had disclosed
in 1970. And he resorted to the claim that he discontinued that virtuous policy
because "other candidates failed to follow his lead."
A bit late, yes, very teurdy. And, of course, too late for his announcement to have
any effect on the New Hampshire vote five da> before. And, of course, too late for
Florida voters to learn who is bankrolling the f rontrunner ' s ccunpaign.
He said that he would disclose his data "within ten days." Ten days from 3/12/72.
Indeed he could have cremked out his contributor lists in time for the Illinois
voters to have a look at them. But as of the date of the Illinois primary, 3/21/72,
he was planning to postpone his disclosure for another five days and release the
information on 3/27/72, safely distant from the Illinois results.
H. EVEN THEN, ONLY A PARTIAL DISCLOSURE! But even when he finally gets around to it,
on 3/27/72 he will be disclosing only the donations received from 1/4/72 to that date.
Merely two and a half months' worth of disclosure.
Only later, at some unspecified date, will Muskie tell about the million or more
dollars he received between 10/30/70 and 1/4/72 — fourteen months of income period
which he plans to keep secret on 3/27/72. And then, again at some unspecified date
4880
(3)
still later, he will tell about the money received between 'i/21/12 and 4/7/72,
the date at which the new disclosure law will finally take effect.
I. SUSPICIOUS MUSKIE MONEY. On March 3, 1972, the authoritative Wall Street Journal
stated on its "Washington Wire" that "The Senator dares not reveal contributors'
names. . .gifts from Republican defense contractors would dry up."
On 2/29/72, for a fancy fund-raiser in NYC, the names of I.T.T. board director
Felix Rohatyn and his wife were listed as guests at the S125/plate dinner.
On 3/9/72, Felix Rohatyn was the New York Times' "Man in the News" because of his
intriguing connections with the I.T.T. scandal being uncovered by Jack Anderson.
"You know, he's a strong critic of the Administration and has been very active
in Senator Muskie's Presidential ccunpaign," noted one Wall Streeter who has
followed Mr. Rohatyn 's career. "So it's ironic that he should become involved in
this problem over one of Mr. Nixon's appointees."
Nicholas von Hoffman echoed the same curiosity about Mr. Rohatyn in a Washington Poet
column:
But it's also the respectables who are getting it. Like Muskie, for in his
attempt to share the blame, Kleindienst let it out that little Felix the Fixer,
Rohatyn, is a Muskie advisor on economic matters. The presidential candidate's
headqucurters confirmed this, saying Felix had worked with Muskie on an ignoble
piece of legislation which allows stockbrokers to gamble with their customers '
money .
Little wonder that Muskie is embarrassed about releasing his money sources!
But apparently this problem is nothing new for Muskie. According to his biographers
Lippman-Hansen, "Some contributions in 1970 from sources that were considered dubious
were returned . "
Suspecting some skunks in the woodpile, Baltimore Sun reporter Adeun Clymer contacted
the Muskie staff to find out if any 1972 money was being refunded. He reported on
3/17/72:
Berl I. Bernhard, campaign staff director, refused to comment on a report that
some Republican contributors had asked for their money back rather than have
their names published.
Well, maybe that's why the Muskie disclosure date has been put off so long. Maybe
that's why a report came forth in the N.Y. Post on March 11th that Muskie wanted to
contact his 20 largest contributors prior to his disclosure. And that's probably why
on Meurch 12th Muskie "declined to answer questions about whether any of his contribu-
tors would object to the disclosure," according the the A. P. wire release. Maybe
that's why the disclosure date was moved later from March 22nd to March 27th.
Could it be that Muskie has been busily refunding money to fat-cats who fear to have
their names disclosed? Well, it seems we'll never know. On 3/27/72 the Muskie lists
will probably show only the names of those who have given and haven't asked for their
money back, Indian-giver style. We'll never know about those who gave in 1971 or 1972
and assumed that their money would remain forever a deep, dark secret between Muskie
and themselves. The names may have alresdybeen smudged out ccurefully by a fat eraser
or an inscrutable computer.
4881
S)
J. X_ WOULD BE OUT OT THE RACE. On January 17, 1972, reporter Richard Reeves
asked Ed Muskle why he didn't give a straightforward, open answer to Dave Broder's
question the preceding day, when Broder had asked Muskie cJDOut his refusal to
disclose. Muskie said: "If I were to do that, I'd be out of the race."
Just imagine. Suppose Richcurd Nixon were to say:
If the public knew about my secret deal with Jimmy Hoffa, I'd never
get re-elected.
Would the press and the public ignore that statement? Certainly not. It would
become the prize-winning foot-in-mouth statement of the year. Yet Ed Muskie can
make a statement that "he'd be out of the race" and everyone yawns.
Why? Richard Reeves explained it by saying that perhaps he had just become so
cynical alxjut this dreadful problem of campaign financing that it seemed normal .
One reporter on the Muskie campaign trail said "So what else is new?" A different
reporter, one assigned to the job of 1972 finance reporting, said "Look, most of
those guys who are following Muskie are Democrats themselves. And they want to beat
Richard Nixon. So they're not going to shove it up Muskie's ass unless they have to."
And still a different reporter said: "My gosh, did Muskie really say that? Wow, that
really ought to be looked into."
K. A FREE MASTER'S DEGREE IN POLITICAL SCIENCE. Such are the words that Richard
Reeves used in the New York Magazine aurticle dated 2/7/72 in describing Muskie's
source of money t
Muskie, the frontrunner . . . .is a big-money candidate, an investment candidate
— if his books were opened, the country would get a free master's degree in
political science.
Well, even in advance of the 3/27/72 disclosure date, we do have some clue as to
where that money comes from. We need only look at the big money on Muskie's list
of so-called Senate contributors in 1970 (or were they presidential donors?) .
For example, Muskie did receive in 1970 a total of $30,000 from the purveyors of
"celluloid sex":
$11,000 from Arnold & Ruth Picker — United Artists (incl $1000 from David Picker)
$11,500 from the Redstone family — Sumner, Michael and Edward — they run the
Northeastern Theatres Corp.
$ 2,000 from Robert Benjeunin — United Artists
$ 1,000 from Burton Roberts — Northern Screen Service Corp.
$ 1,000 from Ray Stark, president of Rastar Productions
$ 1,000 from David Flexer, president of In-flite Motion Pictures
$ 1,000 from Arthur Krim — United Artists
$ 1,000 from Ed Weisl, chairman of the executive comm. , Paramount Pictures
$ 500 from Eric Pleskow — United Artists.
It's puzzling, of course. Why would Muskie receive major support from the movie
industry? Would they be planning to do a super spectacular along the windswept
cliffs of Maine? At Kennebunkport? With Muskie as Superstar? Or will they film
their flick at the White House and call it "The Buying of a President."
Much more understandable and obvious is the 1970 donation of $3300 from Mr. William
A. Delano, 800 West Teunpa St., Springfield, Missouri. Naturally everyone seeking
his master's degree in political science would understand that. So too the $3332
donation from Mr. J. E. Mueller, 508 Portland Bldg., Louisville, Kentucky. Both of
21-296 O - 74 - pt. 11 -- 33
4882
CO)
those two gifts are abundantly obvious. At least to anyone studying political
giving. Here's why:
A couple of weeks ago, Marquis Childs, columnist for the United Features Syndicate,
said, "The rich, ripe hypocrisy spread around about campaign contributions is enough
to cover at least the Eastern Seaboard with a layer an inch thick." What Childs
ignored to say is that the hypocrisy spreads out to Kentucky and Missouri as well.
The donation from Missouri most likely ceune from ADEPT and the donation from Kentucky
most definitely came from SPACE. — Eh?
ADEPT means Agriculture and Dairy Educational Political Trust. And SPACE means
Special Political Agricultural Community Education.
At first glance, one might suppose that these two groups are nice, good-government
committees sponsored by lots of little folk out there in mid-America, U.S.A.
But in actual fact, these are the same people who paid Richard Nixon and the
Republican National Committee some $322,500 in 1971 in order to get an increase in
the support price of milk. Currently their handsome gifts and the whole curdled
deal are the subject of an extraordinarily embarrassing court case brought by Ralph
Nader in the federal courts. Nader is seeking to get the support price of milk
returned to its proper supply-and-demand levels , instead of the price pegged by
ADEPT and SPACE which gives fat-cow dairy farmers a $300,000,000 bonanza. (Not
bad, a 1000:1 profit on political donation 'a I) Nader's suit also seeks to have that
$322,500 returned from the R.N.C. to the federal treasury.
Anyway, it's mighty helpful for ADEPT and SPACE to have friends in Congress who
won't squawk about the highway robbery imposed on average consumers. And it seems
that Ed Muskie is ons of those who has been muzzled by his profit-seeking friends.
In the Richard Reeves interview 1/17/72, Muskie said:
We're very careful about the contributions we receive. .. .we avoid conflict of
interest problems or contributions that have strings tied to them, whether they're
visible or invisible strings.
right: — Next lesson in the political science course: you collect a nice bundle of
"Senate re-election money" from Wall Street:
$2000 from Herbert Allen — who spent really big money for Fred Harris's candidacy
$2500 from John P. Tyrrell, 42 Wall Street
$2500 from Richard Harrington, 42 Wall Street
$1000 from Douglas Dillon, who gives to everybody's campaigns (?)
$1000 from Alexander Vagliano, 23 Wall Street
$1000 from William Louis-Dreyfus, Wall Street neighbor at 26 Broadway.
Now there's a cool $10,000 and if you don't "GO TO JAIL" then you proceed in your
Senate re-election campaign to Washington, D.C. and collect your next course credits
(and $27,000) from a few old friends who want to be sure that Maine has the right
kind of Senator. Apart from $5000 each from Sanford D. Greenberg and the David
Challinor family, Muskie also received $1000 from Mr. John L. Humphries, in charge
of Corporate Public Affairs for the TRW Insurance Co. Now it happens that neither
John L. Humphries nor TRW Insurance are currently listed in the 1972 Washington
telephone directory, but nonetheless TRW is an abbreviation used by the Thompson-
Ramo-Woolridge company and it is a large defense contractor, and so if you can figure
that one out, you have passed Richard Reeves' course in political science.
Somehow the words "United Artists" and "ADEPT" and "TRW Insurance" just seem so
heavily laden with irony. But then surely that's just a coincidence.
4883
L. MUSKIE GETS ANGRY, EVASIVE AND IRRATIONAL . It would appeeu: that the problem
of disclosing financial resources is no easy matter for Muskie. Not, at least,
from an emotional perspective. Almost every time he has been asked about his
sources of money he has become notice^^3ly upset. As Joe Nicholson observed in the
Washington Monthly a year ago, "the aspect of the campaign 6U30ut which he frets the
most is fund-raising."
On 2/29/72 Muskie was being interviewed by Tampa Tribune writer Charles Hendrick
and he "appeared irked" by the repeated questions about campaign financing.
On 3/6/72 as reported by A. P. writer Carl Leubsdorf , an "obviously angered Muskie"
was prompted to claim that his questioner was a "plant" in the audience, since the
questioner persisted in asking Muskie about his campaign sources.
On 3/10/72, Jules Witcover of the Los Angeles Times filed a story telling about
Muskie ' s post-election news conference in Manchester, where Muskie had "demonstrated
some testiness at repeated questioning from reporters about his refusal to say where
his money in 1971 and 1972 came from."
On 3/12/72 Don Oberdorfer reported: "Muskie 's increasingly testy statements and
excuses on this question do not amd should not convince the public."
Muskie 's staff aide in Florida tried to explain away Muskie 's position on campaign
finance by saying that the Muskie committee was complying with provisions of Florida's
campaign contributions law, "one of the stictest in the nation." What Muskie 's
evasive aide did not mention is that the "strict" Florida law does not apply to
presidential candidates, who cure required merely to file a report 45 days after the
primary has taken place.
Muskie himself compounded the confusion in Florida when he told a Tampa audience
that he wouldn't disclose because:
YOU WOULDN'T WANT ME TO BREAK THE LAW WOULD YOU?
Surely that remark must rank among the winners in the History of Absurdity.
M. NOT ONE OF THE REAL ISSUES? Senator Muskie has campaigned on the politics of
"trust and confidence." Yet he has brushed off this campaign disclosure question
as an inconsequential bit of trivia. After speaking of campaign disclosure on the
N.H. television debate, he said "Now if I may turn to the real issues in this cam-
paign...." But as Don Oberdorfer said in his Washington Post column, "If there
was ever an issue of trust and confidence, this is it."
In the midst of the Senate hearings on I.T.T. donations to the Republicams, one would
think that Muskie might awaken to the need for public enlightenment eibout who buys
presidential candidates. What a pity if the citizens of the U.S.A. had to wait until
a 1973 Senate committee started investigating the donations to "President Muskie 's"
early campaign.
During that election eve television broadcast in 1970, Ed Muskie charged Nixon with
"deception of unprecedented volume." Ed Muskie ought to think eibout it himself if
he wants to win the "trust and confidence" of American voters.
4884
Exhibit No. 244-28
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 2, 1972]
Justice Broke Rules in Halperin Tap
(By William Chapman)
The Justice Department apparently failed to observe its own ground rules when
it spent 21 months tapping the telephone of Morton H. Halperin, a former
national security aide.
According to legal papers filed in a civil suit, former Attorney General John N.
Mitchell was never asked for i>ermission to renew the wiretap despite a depart-
mental rule requiring renewed authority every 00 days.
The documents also show that Hali^rin was under electronic surveillance by
the FBI long after he had quit the government and during a period when he was
an adviser to Sen. Edmund Muskie (D-Maiue), then a potential presidential
candidate.
The legal papers have turned up in the civil suit that Halperin filed against
Mitchell. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, and other top oflScials or former
oificials.
The reply brief on behalf of defendants shows that Halperin was being wire-
tapped from May 12. 1969, until Feb. 10, 1971.
The administration has claimed that Halperin's tap was placed in the interests
of national security. Normally, according to Justice officials, the department fol-
lowed a rule of requiring renewals of such wiretaps to be authorized every 90 days
by the Attorney General.
However, the rule seems to have been ignored in Halperin's case. Mitchell, in a
separate reply brief to Halperin's suit, does not dispute the complaint that he
authorized the first placement of a wiretap. But he said he ". . . was never re-
quested to extend such authorization for any specific periods of time."
In a fuller reply brief by Mitchell and other defendants, the former and
present officials admit that after the first tap was authorized in May, 1969, no
furtlier authorizations were either sought or authorized.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the apparent departure from
the national security wiretapping ground rules. A siiokesman said no one would
comment while the Halperin .suit is in the courts.
Halperin was one of 17 persons whom the government has admitted wiretap-
ping in connection with national security affairs, presumably in its attempts to
curb news leaks.
He aniarently was subjected to the longest of the taps. Kissinger has testified
that the longest one was 21 months.
In their brief, the defendants admit that summaries of the conversations over-
heard on the Halperin wiretap were made available by the FBI to Kissinger.
Alexander Haig, who is now chief of the White House staff, and H. R. Haldeman,
the former chief of staff.
Kissinger is named in the brief as the government official who first gave Hal-
perin's name to the FBI. Kissinger at the time was Pre.'ddent Nixon's national
security adviser and head of the staff for which Halperin was a consultant.
Based on Kissinger's information and other information available to the FBI.
agents of the FBI installed the tap on Hali>erin's home in Bethesda, the defend-
ants said in the brief.
4885
[From the Washington Star-News. Oct. 15, 1973]
New Tap of a Muskie Aide Disclosed
(By John M. Crewdson)
Authoritative sources have disclosed a second instance in which a "national
security" wiretap authorized by President Nixon remained in effect on a former
National Security Council staff member after he had left the government and
joined the presidential campaign of Sen. Edmund S. Muskie.
The disclosure is the strongest indication thus far that what apparently began
in early 1969 as an effort to find and stop leaks of classified information to the
press may have eventually turned into a political intelligence-gathering operation
aimed at both Democratic and Republican opponents of the Nixon administration.
According to well-informed government sources, the wiretap, placed on the
home telephone of Anthony Lake in May 1970, shortly after he had announced
his intention to resign from the council, was maintained until Februarj' 1971 —
two months after Lake had signed on as Muskie's chief foreign policy ad\aser.
A similar '"national security" wiretap on Morton Halperin, a former colleague
of Lake at the council, remained in force after he, too, had severed his ties to the
government and had become the head of Muskie's campaign committee on the
military budget.
Both men have said that, during the time they were under surveillance by the
FBI, they discussed Muskie's campaign strategy over the telephone with other
Muskie aides.
Although neither man can recall any .specific conversations on the tapped
phones with Muskie himself, Lake said it was possible that he might have spoken
with the senator from his phone by telephone at some point during the two-
month period.
He added, however, that anyone li-stening to his conversations with other
campaign officials at the least could have anticipated "some of the speeches he
(Muskie) was going to make."
Until it became apparent in mid-March of 1972 that Muskie's bid for the Demo-
cratic presidential nomination was faltering badly, he was the principal target
of a camiKiign of espionage and sabotage by Republican undercover agents that
included placing spies in his oflices and issuing bogus, and in .some cases scur-
rilous, literature under his name.
In a statement in May, Nixon took full responsibility for authorizing the
"national security" wiretap operation, which involved the surveillance of 11 other
government officials besides Lake and Halperin. and four newsmen. Both the
White House and the Justice Department have since refused to comment on the
matter.
Nixon asserted in May that each of the 17 wiretap.s — the fir.st of which were
installed in May 1969 and the last removed along with Lake and Halperin taps
in February 1971— were "undertaken in accordance with procedures legal at the
time," and were intended "to find and stop .serious national security leaks."
Although Halperin's tap remained on for 21 months and Lake's for nine, it ap-
pears that they were continued in the absence of any evidence that either man
was a source or potential source of any of the leaks with which Nixon has .said
the oi>eration was concerned.
Officials with access to the logs of the overheard conversations said they had
a.ssured Lake that "nothing damaging was ever turned up" on him, and Secre-
tary of State Henry Kissinger has .said that the wiretap on Halx)erin "never cast
any doubt on his loyalty or discretion."
4880
Exhibit No. 244-29
';'; 5* ^'ove.Viber 19''li,
.;;y Aove
\ k. p.m.
X S X 0 :^ A :< 2 U.M
VO; ■ ■ . wOOm
SUB Ji^C A : 'Jd lo -^'coTtQ s
2'aoro is son;achir.g very stran^o i^oi.'i;^ on with tVio telophonoG.
All or. lines 7S59 and 7363 (v/al'o's line). , Tne phone rings, ve pick
it up, there's nothinj; there but the sound o* a phone 'ringing (as '
if you had yUst dialed a call). Then it is answered, and thero you
are... you didn't call thea and c'c^ay didn't call you.
1* may 00 paranoid, out i"o stri'icoj; i.;o that in the follovintj
list oi" tho offices reached i.'. this w-^y i.i the 'last,- tv/o hours, tiiero.
aro enouiih connected to our activities to'sui'uOst, a, posai'ole' Viiessed-
uj', phono uUi;iiin2; :• '• • • . .
• ■ ~ A/nit.: l.ou:;o^ .;
, i?.i.mo;.on ,i':„.l.fisf,y" / •. > '
\o>i.;i.^...>~,v,.
iVin"iii.<.k Oiiii'ii. >Jr'iMp''><v/ (\ \x-
{ion.'vte i'viblic V/o£'i<.'< liwivn office ""'^
'.I'ouiio .\ralic V/o:c'i':s iMoin off.ico'V, •
ii'ouiiO A-ji'lculviriTo CoiiVi'.it'oee.. ' ■ ■
oC.'IVitOi" i'iVio.Ci.O/,'
iVfit "ion-'il i'.vi"'iv ovjrvico
■T.;ii.vi?.-.i i"j';lo.'v>- '■>.>»«
• v.r.,V»Ckii Gy of iO»Wi>.io
rvCiilroiiu i\u'tivi:i..oivo i-'und
V;cc ProTi.'iin'v ':; Offi<;u"''^ ■' ^ , • ■
J'Jol'ii'ir.-" ;io.-Me (;;<:v;.-val 'oifrie.1;
])\r<l~.\-^c:>:f.-ic (.-.•!'/oal1 tiv.;oS; ' . .'
flon^uor ».K:;;':.v>y ^;;.:V0ViiJ. vir,;e^;C/--/<>--»\;-^-'- ^,
Cohr.V"----"---' -:•■■<•<;.•.:.•; \,;-,everal tVijcs) Co-j.. ,v
Gi-n.itor J.iVi...o
Thoro have al.';o ocon i,ev>';-al in;;.; .-..■.cog in vhich a l-in.ya'.S i-lionu
•was ?ic;<c6>',unly to oncountor (a) a oo;jd li.-.a or (0) a. co.Wertatio.-.
already (joiAg or. between two other people,
^'"^ QAlis^^^-^;^
4887
10 November 1971
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leon
FROM: Ann
SUBJECT: Addenda to Telephone Memo of 9 November
Shortly after ray memo of yesterday, I picked up a ringing
phone (7859) which was in turn picked up at the other end by
Congressman Blatnik's office (for the third time). The girl had
a telephone company representative standing by her desk, and I
spoke to him.
My conversation with the telephone man established the fact
that there were only three offices on Capitol Hill which had the same
problems described. They are:
Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution
House Committee on Public Works
Congressman Blatnik's Office
Shortly after that I spoke to another telephone man who
was in the House Public Works Committee. He confirmed the fact
that it was only the above three offices which were involved. He
also said that it was a most unusual problem which he had never
encountered before. The problems in the other two offices are
similar to ours, except that Blatnik and the House Committee keep
getting hooked up to each other and to us, and don't seem to have
the wide range of hookups with offices all over the city that we do.
Earlier in the day yesterday, I had registered a complaint with
Kathy Forcum -- at that time I thought the situation was an ordinary
mechanical problem -- and she called the Sergeant at Arms. Mr. Tansill^
of the C & P Telephone Company, arrived in the 4th floor office about
5:30 to discuss the situation. I went downstairs and talked to him.
Following your instructions, I played down the situation...! told
him the mysterious calls had stopped an hour or so earlier, and did not
show him the list of places reached. He wanted to station a man in our
office today to wait around for funny calls, but I suggested that he
wait until we had some, at which point I would call him. He agreed. H«
evidently did not know about the House Committee and Blatnik's office,
as he said our office was the only one with this problem, I didn't teV.
him.
Thus far (10 a.m.) today, nothing out of the ordinary has happene<
A TRUE COPY
4888
Exhibit No. 244-30
QlCntieb S>U*ie» Senate
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
WASHINOTON, D.C. 20910
October 26, 1973
MEMORANDUM
TO: Berl Bernhard
FROM: Leon G. Billings
SUBJECT: The "Funny Phones" Incident
As per your request of October 2k, 1973 > I will try to recall
the events subsequent to the "Funny Phones" Incident of November 9
and 10, 1971.
After being alerted to the peculiar performance of the telephones
serving the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution offices, tele-
phone company representatives interviewed the staff to determine the
nature of the problem. To my knowledge the problem ceased shortly
after Ann's conversation with Blatnik's office.
I spoke with the representatives of the telephone company to
ascertain what might have occurred. While I was answered that '
they were absolutely certain that there had been no tampering with
the phones, they were equally adamant that there was no mechanical
way that the incident could have occurred.
When I pressed them on the incident -- for some explanation --
I could get only a repetition of the above.
You should note that at this time there were intense White House
pressures on Blatnik and the House Committee to hold hearings on the
Senate-passed water pollution bill. Blatnik was resisting but shortly
thereafter had a heart attack and the House held the hearing.
Our only speculation was (and it was in jest -- not for paranoia)
that the White House would go to any lengths to find out what we were
doing.
Now in retrospect....?
Please note that I have checked these facts with Ann Garrabrant
and, to the best of her recollection, they are accurate.
4889
Exhibit No. 245
COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
>70l PENNSYLVANIA AVENUC. N W.
WASHIKCTON. D. C 20006
12021 333.0S20
January 31, 1972
CONFIDENTIAL
-MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The attached information has come to our attention
recently regarding Senator Muskie*s campaign organ-
ization. ~
JEB k?\fi)^,<^lJt)ER
Attachment
CONFIDENTIAL
4890
January 31, 1972
1. Senator Muskie has received an Invitation from a Mr. William
G, Mullen, General Counsel of the National Newspaper Association
here in Washington, D. C. The invitation is for the Senator to
appear at their Washington Government Affairs Conference on
March 16 - 18. They note in their invitation that they, take a
great deal of pleasure in the Senator's introduction of S.2965,
the so-called "Truth in Government Act of 1971".
2. Senator Muskie has been invited to speak at the 1972 Convention
of the Young Democratic Club of Wisconsin. The convention is
scheduled for March 17 - 19, 1972 at the Wausau Midway Motor
Lodge.
3. Mr. Frederick Merrill, House Office BCiilding 1A22, Washington,
D. C. 20515 has contributed to the Muskie 1972 campaign.
A. Mr. Wally Boman (?), President of the Polish National Alliance
of the United States of North America, Council 203, Washington,
D. C. supports Senator Muskie and made a personal contribution
to his campaign. His address is 5119 Temple Hills Road,
Washington, D. C. 20031.
^- ■ ^Ir. Norman Hincrfeld, Executive Vice President, Kaiser-Roth
Corporation, 6A0 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10019 is a
contributor to the Muskie campaign. ~'v
6. Mr. Sam Harris, 120 Broadway, New York, New York 10005 is
a generous contributor,
7. Mr. Jerry Magnin, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2010,
Los Angeles, California 90067 is a generous contributor to
the Muskie campaign.
8. Senator Muskie received a letter from" Senator Thomas F.
Eagleton who wrote to him as Chairman of the Democratic Policy
Council's Committee on Human Environment for the purpose of
inviting Senator Muskie to put forth specific suggestions from
him or his_ staff for the 1972 Democratic platform. Enclosed
with the correspondence was an outline which says that the
suggested format for platform suggestions should be double-spaced
on a single sheet of 8 1/2 by 11 paper with the subject , first ;
the sub-classification, second; third, would be a suggestion for
a specific platform langua,ge limited to 25 or 50 words; forth,
a statement in support of platform language to be limited to
100 or 150 words; fifth, an optional list of additional references;
sixth, optional - name or individual organization submitting the
recommendations and suggestions.
4891
-2-
9. Mr. Frank S. Bernard, 222 South 2^th Street, P. 0. Box A87,
San Jose, California 95103 has contributed $1,000 to the California
Citizens for Muskie Campaign. II
10. Letter to Senator Muskie from Robert Okln, Financial Consultant,
Lincoln. Avenue, West Orange, New Jersey: "It is my expectation
that additional funds can be available within 30 - 45 days, and
I shall send them slong.to you through Harold Grant."
4892
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
The Berkshire Eagle
PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS
October 24, 1973
on, Sam Dash
ajority Counsel
enate Select Committee
n Presidential Campaign Activities
oom G-308
ew Senate Office Building
ashington, D.C,
'ear Mr. Dash,
During a public hearing of the Senate Select Committee
n Oct. 11, a witness, Michael MacMinoway, made certain
negations corcerning my participation in the presidential
ampaign of 1972.
At the suggestion of Mr. Paul Summit of your staff,
: have dr^vm up the enclosed affidavit in response to Mr.
lacMinoway's allegations. The affidavit is signed and
lotarized.
I would appreciate it very much if you would include
ly affidavit as part of the Committee's records. As I
mderstand it, this is the best means of answering the
illegations made about me in public testimony before the
Committee.
If I can be of any service to the Committee in any
ray, please let me know. Thank you for your help.
Sincerely yours,
Thomac P. Southwick
4893
BEFORE THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS P. SOUTHWICK
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS )
) ss. :
CITY OF PITTSFIELD )
THOMAS P. SOUTHWICK, being first duly sworn, deposes
and says:
1. I reside at 41-D Highview Drive, Pittsfield,
Massachusetts 01201. I am currently Assistant Managing Editor
of UpCountry Magazine, a monthly publication of the Berkshire
Eagle, a daily newspaper in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.
2. During public hearings before this Committee on
October 11, 1973, a witness, Mr. Michael MacMinoway, made certain
allegations concerning my participation in the presidential
f
campaign of 1972. I submit this affidavit to the Committee
for inclusion in the official record of the Committee's proceed-
ings, in order to establish the truth as to these allegations.
3. During the period from September, 1971 until the
Democratic National Convention in July 1972, I worked in the
campaign of Senator George S. McGovern to win the Democratic
nomination for President. At various times during that period
I served as Co-Director of National Youth for McGovern, National
Youth Coordinator in Iowa, New Hampshire and Wisconsin, and as a
political field coordinator in Ohio, California and New York.
4. During and immediately prior to the Democratic
National Convention in Miami Beach, I served as liaison between
the McGovern campaign and young people who came to Miami without
any official role in the convention. I also helped to organize
young delegates to the convention, and was a representative of
4894
the McGovern campaign for dealing with young people generally.
5. During the general election campaign, I served as
political field coordinator in the Fifth Congressional District
in Michigan.
6. In his testimony, Mr. MacMinoway stated that he
met me in Wisconsin and in Miami Beach. To the best of my
recollection, I have never met Mr. MacMinoway at any time. I
do not know him; I do not recognize his name; I do not recognize
his face.
7. In an entry in his diary for March 24, 1972, Mr.
MacMinoway stated "Tom Southwick, the youth coordinator for
McGovern, is lining us [sic] some marches for Sunday". That
statement is false. I never "lined up" any marches of any kind
at any time during the primary or general election campaign of
1972. I was never, at any time, directly or indirectly, involved
in "lining up" or organizing in any way any marches.
8. In his diary entry for March 25, 1972, Mr.
MacMinoway stated "Went to McGovern headquarters and talked
with Southwick about Sunday TV interview with Muskie that
Southwick plans to disrupt." Mr. MacMinoway repeated this state-
ment in testimony before this Committee. The statement is
false. To the best of my recollection, I have never, at any time
had any knowledge of any "TV interview with Muskie" during
the Wisconsin primary campaign. Moreover, I state categorically
that I never, at any time or in any way, directly or indirectly,
was involved with any effort or plan to disrupt any television
interview with Senator Muskie or to disrupt any other activity
or event being held on behalf of any candidate for office.
9. In his diary entry for March 30, 1972, Mr.
MacMinoway stated: "Left for McGovern 's headquarters and talked
with Tom Southwick, youth organizer, and helped him organize a
south side canvass door-to-door." That statement is false. I
4895
never, at any time, was involved in any way in organizing a
canvass in Wisconsin. that task was the responsibility of the
McGovern campaign's Congressional District Coordinators (in the
case of South Milwaukee, Mr. Carl Wagner). My responsibility
in Wisconsin was to provide volunteers to work with our district
coordinators .
10. In his testimony before this Committee, Mr.
MacMinoway stated: "Tom Southwick planned, organized, and
carried out a demonstration against Senator Muskie. " Tliat state
ment is false. I never, at any time or in any way, directly or
indirectly, planned, organized, carried out, participated in,
approved, or engaged in demonstrations of any sort against
Senator Muskie or against any other candidate for office.
11. In his testimony before this Committee and in his
diary, Mr. MacMinoway stated that during the Democratic National
Convention in Miami Beach, "I met McGovern 's youth coordinator,
Tom Southwick, and he mentioned to me that McGovern was organizing
his own security staff ... I obtained the name of McGovern 's
top security man from Tom." To the best of my recollection, I
did not meet Mr. MacMinoway in Miami Beach, and I did not refer
him to the McGovern campaign's security co-ordinator .
12. To the best of my knowledge, no one in the McGovern
campaign at any time planned, organized, or participated in any
demonstration against any opposing candidate. Nor were any
campaign facilities used for such a purpose. It was the clearly
expressed and repeatedly emphasized policy of the McGovern cam-
paign that no member of the campaign staff should engage in any
demonstration of any sort against any other candidate for office.
Further deponent sayeth not.
77-.. . , P >,
/'■':
/
Thomas P. Southwick
Subscribed and sworn to
before me this ■'"'' day
of October, 1973.
Notary Public
o
BOSTON PUBLIC LIHRadv
3 lllllllllll..
3 9999 06313 326 6
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11